The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a prima facie case to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in a challan, titled “State vs Syed Muried Hussain Shah”, by virtue of which the petitioner has been ordered to be charged for commission of offences under sections 5 (1) (d), read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 4-A of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2014, as also order No. 21-JK-GAD(vig) of 2020 dated 16.03.2018, by virtue of which sanction has been granted by the Government for prosecution of the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed on the following grounds:

(a) That the order of framing of charge is bad in law as in the instant case, neither any official act required to be done by the petitioner was pending in petitioner’s office, nor there is any whisper of demand of bribe in the entire story followed by the alleged acceptance of bribe money. Therefore, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(b) That the petitioner had become functus officio on 06.11.2018 after recommending the case for renewal along with the recommendation of penal interest to the Excise Commissioner therefore, the framing of charge is bad in law.

(c) That as per the Excise Policy, Rules and Norms, no formal permission for opening of the liquor shop was required to be given by the petitioner in view of the new Excise Policy and further as per Clause 11, the renewal of the license was automatic on depositing of the license fee and other dues, those were deposited on 18.12.2018 itself.

(d) That the petitioner had already processed the renewal of the license on 06.11.2018 and the story regarding demand and acceptance of rupees two lacs as illegal gratification from the complainant for processing of the renewal of license gets falsified.

(e) That the charged framed is contradictory to the order impugned.

(f) That the order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been passed without application of mind.

3. Response stands filed by the respondents in which factual facts of the case has been narrated.

4. Mr. G. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner stood relieved on 20.12.2018 when the order of transfer of the petitioner was issued and further that the license stood already renewed three days prior to the alleged trap.

5. Per contra, Mr. Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the independent witness, PW Sukhdev Singh has categorically deposed with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the petitioner and further the bribe money was recovered from the locker/almirah of the petitioner. He further argued that the defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and the petitioner can prove defence during the course of trial.

6. Heard and perused the scanned record.

7. The facts as they emanate from the charge sheet are that the FIR bearing No. 42/2018 was registered on 21.12.2018 at 1230 hours when the complainant approached the respondents with a written complaint/application, wherein it was stated that the renewal of the license of Dalip Singh Wine Shop at Narwal was pending since 01.05.2018 in the Excise Department and the shop was lying closed due to non-renewal. He further submitted that he had been running from pillar to post for renewal of the license for the last eight months. The petitioner was victimizing, harassing and demanding for a bribe of rupees two lacs for clearing the file. Since his mother was ailing and unable to move, so he was following up the case for renewal of the license. He was paying a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner on behalf of his mother under compulsion to avoid any further loses. On the receipt of said complaint, FIR was registered and a trap was laid by Rawail Singh Choudhary Dy. S.P (TLO)