Specific allegations of being caught red-handed accepting a bribe do not justify quashing the F.I.R. or the entire criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

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 for quashing the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is pending in the court of Special Judge, (A.C.B.), West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while posted as Head Clerk of Chandil Sub-Divisional Office, JBVNL demanded a bribe of Rs.800/- from the complainant for giving one new electric energy connection in the name of the mother of the complainant but as the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau and submitted a written application, upon which, verification of the complaint was made by the inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and during the conversation, in the course of verification, the petitioner scaled down the demand of bribe from Rs.800/- to Rs.600/-. On 11.07.2020, a trap was laid and on the same day, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.600/-. The bribe amount was recovered by the petitioner and denomination of the notes were tallied with the denominations mentioned in the pre-trap G.C. note Memorandum and upon the fingers of both the hands as well as left pocket of shirt of the petitioner were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has deposited Rs.680/- for security deposit, the receipt of which was provided to the informant on 26.08.2020. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has received only Rs.600/- for the charge of electric energy connection and the informant told the petitioner that he will give the remaining Rs.80/- later on and the said money was kept by the petitioner in his pocket without knowing that the informant has come with the personnel of Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not received any money as bribe and there is no independent witness and also the investigation has not been properly done in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 corresponding to Misc. Criminal Application No.196 of 2020 be quashed.

5. Learned Special P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.196 of 2020 in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020. Learned Special P.P. further submits that this is a clear cut case where the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount of Rs.600/-. It is next submitted by the learned Special P.P. that the petitioner admittedly was arrested immediately after his being caught red handed on 11.07.2020 itself hence, there is no justifiable reason to show that the receipt of Rs.680/-, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 dated 26.08.2020 relates to a transaction of Rs.600/- rather the witnesses have categorically stated in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the said amount of Rs.600/- was received as bribe. It is further submitted by the learned Special P.P. that as there is specific allegation against the petitioner of being caught in a trap red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.600/-, hence there is no justifi