IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 96/2016 (47/2014) titled as State Vs. Purushottam Jeswani pending before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases No. 2, Jaipur, as also the charge sheet No. 309/2014 and FIR No. 277/2014 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and the cognizance order dated 08.10.2014 passed by Special Judge (PC Act Cases) No. 1, Jaipur and all consequential proceeding thereto qua the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 11.08.2014, an FIR No. 277/2014 was registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘the ACB’) in which complainant-Additional Superintendent of Police - Bajrang Singh Shekhawat mentioned that against the petitioner, who was working on the post of Executive Engineer in Zone-II Jaipur Nagar Nigam, an information was received to the fact that he takes files of the tenders of civil works from Accounts Department and gets them approved from the Chief Executive Officer. Officials of ACB intercepted the petitioner in the morning of 10.08.2014 at Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur where 46 files pertaining to tender work and Rs.15,00,000/- were recovered. At that time, petitioner did not give any satisfactory answer. During the course of his interrogation, petitioner stated that Rs.15,00,000/- was the amount of commission of 46 files received from contractors and the said amount was to be given to one Shri Lal Chand Aswal-Chief Executive Officer of Nagar Nigam. The ACB registered FIR No. 277/2014 against the petitioner and co-accused Lal Chand Aswal for the offence under Sections 8, 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are gross abuse of process of the court. He also submits that a bare reading of the prosecution documents do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the prosecution has relied upon the petitioner’s statement recorded at the time of interrogation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these statements are inadmissible in the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that none of the contractors of 46 files were either named as witnesses or as an accused by the ACB and none had stated that they had given Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner for illegal gratification. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no material by way of direct or indirect evidence or even the telephonic transcripts of the petitioner with Shri Lal Chand Aswal or anyone else (including any of the contractor). So, illegal demand and acceptance of any gratification is not proved by the Investigating Agencies. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that ACB also lodged a separate FIR No. 412/2014 on the basis of the present FIR No. 277/2014 under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner in which negative final report was submitted by the ACB, because no excess properties out of the petitioner’s income was found by the Investigating Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that ACB had submitted the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner in which ACB clearly stated that a committee was constituted under the Superintending Engineer of PWD Shri A.K. Sanghi and Rajiv Sanghi They had investigated the matter regarding so-called 46 files and other files but they had not found any illegality except minor irregularities in the procedure. In report, they clearly mentioned that no loss was caused to Nagar Nigam. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Investigating Agency had not impleaded any other person who was responsible for the alleged irregularities, as a co-accused.

5. Learned counsel f