A private individual cannot be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribery or conspiracy if the co-accused has been discharged, as no evidence remains against them.

ORDER :

Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the trial against the petitioner in Session Case No. 07/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Soni and Anr.) being conducted by the Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner, may kindly be ordered to be quashed."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 252/2015 dated 14.09.2015 came to be lodged by one Vinod Kumar Kumawat at Police Chowki A.C.B (Special Unit), Police Station C.P.S., A.C.B., Jaipur alleging inter-alia that he had completed some work relating to installation of high mast lights at various locations in Bikaner city, pursuant to the work order issued by the UIT, Bikaner. In the FIR, it was further alleged that one Lal Chand Soni who was working as an Accountant in UIT, Bikaner had demanded a commission of 4% of the total bill amount as bribe, in order to clear his pending bills.

3. The petitioner-Mohammed Ashik is a private person to whom on being asked by Shri. Lal Chand Soni, the bribe amount was allegedly handed over. As per the prosecution, the bribe amount was recovered from the petitioner on 18.09.2015. The petitioner is presently facing trial before the court of learned Session Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner, for commission of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as P.C. Act) and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as IPC). The charges against the petitioner for offences punishable under the aforesaid sections have been framed vide order dated 25.10.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is neither a public servant nor a person in any authority to act on behalf of Lal Chand Soni. The petitioner does not even know Lal Chand Soni and therefore, there was no question of he taking alleged bribe on his behalf.

5. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Chand Soni v. State through PP (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1071/2021), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order of the revisional court dated 28.03.2023, the order dated 25.10.2021 of framing of charges against Lal Chand Soni, passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Session Case bearing No. 7/2016 has been quashed and set-aside. Lal Chand Soni has been discharged for the alleged offences against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Chand Soni (supra) has already attained finality as the State Government decided not to prefer an SLP, challenging the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner has been charged for the offences under Section 7 P.C. Act read with Section 120B IPC and 120-B IPC simplicitor. However, the charges against the public servant Lal Chand Soni were ordered to be framed for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being a private person cannot be charged for the offences punishable under Section 7 P.C. Act. Further, once the charge-sheet against one of the charge-sheeted accused persons namely Lal Chand Soni, who had allegedly conspired with the petitioner to commit an illegal act, has been set aside by this Court, then the petitioner in no circumstance could be tried for an offence under Section 120B IPC. There cannot be said to be an iota of evidence on record now left against the petitioner in order to prosecute him and hold trial against him for the