The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a prima facie case based on ample evidence in corruption cases, and the need for judicial officers to be trained in handling cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer

(i) to quash the final form no. 07 of 2020 dt. 14.05.2020,

(ii) to quash the cognizance order dt. 23.05.2020,

(iii) to quash all the consequent proceedings in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. case no. 04 of 2020 registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act wherein the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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 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, 1988, No. 16 of 2018 of 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 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Sukhdeonagar Police Station, he was the Investigating Officer of Sukhdeonagar P.S. case no. 34 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by the wife of the accused of that case. The accused of Sukhdeonagar P.S. case no. 34 of 2020 is the complainant of this case. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner called the complainant of this case outside the police station in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. case no. 34 of 2020 which was registered on 18.01.2020. The complainant of this case met the petitioner of this case and the petitioner of this case told the complainant of this case that if the complainant of this case pays Rs. 15,000/-then, the petitioner of this case will help the complainant of this case and if the complainant of this case does not pay money, then the petitioner of this case will submit the report in Court. As the complainant of this case did not want to pay the bribe, hence, he submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. The allegation was verified by the Inspector of Police namely Misir Oraon. The verifying police officer went with the complainant of this case on 16.03.2020. After sometime, the petitioner also reached there and the complainant informed the petitioner of this case that his daughter has met with an accident and requested for some more time, at which, the petitioner told that Rs. 10,000/-was to be paid but first installment of Rs. 3,000/-was to be paid immediately because he has to send the case diary and charge sheet to the court and if the complainant causes any delay, then the petitioner will submit a report in the court. The conversation was heard by the Verifying Officer and the Verifying Officer confirmed the demand of bribe by the petitioner and submitted the verification report; on the basis of which, this case was registered. A trap was laid. The petitioner was caught red-handed after receiving the bribe of Rs. 3,000/-. The solution in which, both the hands of the petitioner were washed, was seized.

The complainant thereafter submitted an application addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Anti corru