JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. Impugned in this Revision Petition is the order dated 3rd of March, 2014 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central Bureau of Investigation Cases) Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu (herein after referred to as 'the trial court'), in case titled 'Central Bureau of Investigation v. Smt. Hajra Khan & Anr.', whereby the respondent has been discharged in respect of the allegations levelled against her for the commission of the offences under sections 120-B, 161 RPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006.

2. The order impugned has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned trial Court has passed the order impugned as if the court was passing the final judgment after appreciating the evidence and further that the statement of the complainant was clear that the accused No. 1/respondent herein was involved in demanding and accepting bribe through accused No. 2.

3. Mr. Tahir Majid Shamsi, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence while discharging the respondent, which is not permissible in law and further that the complainant has categorically stated in his statement during investigation that in the presence of the respondent, the bribe money was accepted by the other accused, who, after retaining half of the bribe money, which he put in his left pocket of the shirt, kept the remaining amount in the drawer of the table of the respondent in her presence.

4. Per Contra, Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, the learned Counsel representing the respondent, submitted that there was no demand on part of the respondent and that no bribe money has been recovered from the respondent, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no evidence against the respondent. He placed reliance on various judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including 2014 (13) SCC 55'; and 2009 (3) SCC 799'.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The prosecution case, as it emanates from the charge sheet, is that on 21st of January, 2023, a written complaint was submitted by the complainant, namely, Shri Harjeet Singh, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jammu, wherein it was stated that he retired as a Senior Engineering Assistant from Radio Kashmir, Jammu in June 2011 and had applied for grant of MACP from Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/- to Grade Pay Rs. 4,800/- which was allowed by the Chief Engineer concerned, but the same was not implemented and the file was pending with the office. The file regarding grant of one increment under 6th Pay Commission was also pending and the files were not being cleared, as the respondent, along with the other accused, namely, Shri Jagdish Kumar Raina, were demanding bribe to clear the files. He had visited the office number of times, but both the respondent and the other accused Jagdish Kumar Raina refused to clear the files till an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was paid. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, the other accused reduced the demand to Rs. 3,000/- which he claimed to be meant for the respondent.

He claims to have recorded the said conversation he had with the other accused on his mobile phone. He did not want to pay the bribe and approached the CBI, Jammu for taking appropriate action in the matter. After finding the complaint genuine, the Superintendent of CBI, Jammu, ordered for registration of an FIR and accordingly, FIR bearing No. RC0042013A0001, dated 21st of January, 2013 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under sections 120-B and 161 RPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation of the case was entrusted to one Shri Radhe Shyam, Dy. SP, CBI, ACB, Jammu, who acted as a trap laying officer. After t