JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 04.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2021 arising out of ACB P.S. Case No. 05 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh.

Though in the prayer portion of the petition it has been mentioned that the concerned offence is of 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act but perusal of the record reveals that the concerned offence involved in this case is punishable under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which reads as under:

“7-A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence - Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while posted as Jamadar of Jainagar Police Station, was caught red handed in a trap after accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant. After successful trap and completion of formalities including inspection of place of occurrence, recording of statement of the witnesses, seizure of articles, police found the allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is made out.

4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2019 SCC Online Jhar 2775, the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not in consonance with law hence, the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2021 arising out of ACB P.S. Case No. 05 of 2020 and the entire criminal proceeding be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sahani, relied upon the judgment of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2019 SCC Online Jhar 2775, paragraphs 10, 14 and 22 of which reads as under:

“10. The word “cognizance” is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer vs. Videocon International Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-19 has held as follows:

19. The expression ‘cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it cannot to take notice of judicially. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.”

14. It is clear that it is not necessary to pass a detail order giving detail reasons while taking cognizance. The order taking c