IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Birendra Kumar, J.

1. The sole petitioner is aggrieved by framing of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 coupled with Section 120B of IPC by the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Session Case No.20/2015 (19/2008).

2. The aforesaid Session Case arises out of FIR No.175/2006 registered on 26.06.2006 with ACB Pali/CPS, Jaipur for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution case is that on the relevant date i.e. 19.06.2006, the petitioner was posted as Manager at Jaitaran Kraya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti. Complainant-Babu Lal Gehlot had performed some contractual work of the Samiti and out of the total bill of Rs.3,87,571/-, Rs.2,30,000/- was already paid to him. Rs.1,37,571/- was still due and for release of that pending money, the petitioner was demanding Rs.70,000/- as bribe. After being harassed for several rounds to get the aforesaid amount released, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- as final settlement. This incident took place on 19.06.2006.

3. On the same day, the complainant made a complaint to the Dy. S.P. of Anti Corruption Bureau, who verified the allegation. Conversations were recorded and the trap was arranged on 21.06.2006 for the reason that the complainant had sought for time from the petitioner to arrange the money. When the trap team reached the Office of the petitioner, the petitioner asked Mr. Babu Lal Gehlot to pay the money to Mr. Chola Ram, who was Accountant thereat. The petitioner further stated to Chola Ram to carry money to a relative of the petitioner. Chola Ram asked the complainant to put the money in the carry bag attached with the Motor Cycle and he proceeded. However, soon thereat, the ACB Team intercepted Chola Ram and criminal prosecution was lodged. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet.

4. The challenge, to the order of charge, is mainly on two grounds; first that sanction to prosecute is itself a defective one and second that offences alleged are not made out.

5. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajash Kumar Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 09.09.2024 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.307/2023.

6. Learned counsel for the State-respondent had drawn attention of the Court on the material on record to substantiate that first sanction to prosecute was granted on 24.07.2007. The same was challenged on the ground of non-application of mind in a civil writ petition before this Court. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2008 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh order according to the law. Thereafter, the Competent Authority again granted sanction on 18.03.2008 and accordingly cognizance was taken on 17.04.2008. However, the second sanction order dated 18.03.2008 was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.3682/2009, which was ultimately dismissed.

7. Since the sanction to prosecute was challenged on the ground of non-application of mind and not on the ground of lack of competency to grant sanction, therefore defense, if any, in application of mind can be available at the stage of trial. Only lack of competency to grant sanction with the authority concerned may give rise to interference at the initial stage, therefore order of charge cannot be faulted on the ground of defect in sanction specially when the writ petition challenging the order of sanction was already dismissed by this Court and the order has attained finality.

8. From the prosecution material, it is evident that there is allegation of demand of bribe against the petitioner and the evidence had been electronically preserved.

There is material on the record to substantiate that work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner as the petitioner was to release the remaining pending bill and the petitioner had also allured the complainant to get his another case settled. Thirdly, there is evidence of acceptance of demanded bribe by the petitioner via Chola Ram. It would be subject matter of trial