JUDGMENT :

[Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.]

1. Instant petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1558 of 2021 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2015 (Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2015) under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereby and whereunder the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, has been rejected.

2. The complaint lodged by one Krishna Mohan Kumar, is the basis of the case. As per the case of prosecution, he was a nominated supplier of boulder under MNREGA Scheme for construction of road and had submitted bill of Rs. 49,000/- before the petitioner for payment. It is alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 3500/- as 7% of total bill amount as illegal gratification for clearing the bill.

3. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and on verification, the allegation was found to be true and thereafter, after completing formalities, a trap team was constituted and the raid was conducted in the office of petitioner on 04.08.2015, who was posted as Block Development Officer. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Baranwas Tirkey and other members reached the office of B.D.O. at 11.00 A.M. The petitioner/accused accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 3500/- and he was caught red-handed with the phenolphthalein smeared currency notes regarding which vigilance case was registered.

4. Further, case of the prosecution is that a large mob was gathered from nearby places at the instance of one Computer Operator, Naushad. The mob forcibly entered into the chamber of the BDO, where the petitioner was detained and the items of seizure were destroyed and the petitioner was released from police custody. F.I.R. regarding the incidence was registered being Chanho P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 under Sections 143, 147, 150, 341, 342, 204, 201, 216, 225, 353, 427, 504, 505, 120B of the I.P.C. The police on investigation submitted final form in this case for want of evidence.

5. The Vigilance Department submitted its charge sheet No. 29 of 2017 on 26.09.2017 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. After charge sheet, cognizance in this case was earlier taken on 07.11.2017 which was challenged before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2337 of 2017 and by order dated 25.11.2019, the matter was remanded back to the learned Court below for passing order afresh.

7. The learned Court below vide order dated 29.11.2019 took cognizance against the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner preferred a discharge petition before the Court below which has been rejected and aggrieved by the order, instant petition has been filed.

8. The order rejecting petition for discharge has been impugned on the ground that complainant had a personal grudge against the petitioner and the present case is an outcome of that. The complainant was working as supplier and broker in the said Block prior to posting of this petitioner and the order restricting entry of brokers, middle men and anti-social elements by the petitioner was the reason for filing of the present case. After assuming the charge of office of Block Development Officer, the petitioner had issued office order dated 13.03.2015 restricting the entry of the Panchayat Sewak and Rojgar Sewak in his official chamber. This order had adversely affected the complainant who had been intermeddling with the affairs of the Department. It was against this backdrop that the complainant Krishna Mohan Kumar lodged the complaint with the Vigilance Department on a manufactured and false charge. Without holding proper preliminary inquiry, the vigilance team conducted the raid in which envelop was thrown into the office of B.D.O. which the petitioner had neither demanded nor received. Against the