1. The Petitioner/A2 has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to call for the entire records in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal and to quash the same.

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner/A2 was charged in respect of an alleged offence under Sections 8 r/w.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent/Complainant filed charge sheet in Salem Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Crime No.2/AC/2005 under Section 8 r/w.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of A.1 to A.7 on 19.04.2006.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that when the Petitioner was doing his B.Sc. Course (Hotel Management), the Respondent/Police inspected the Regional Transport Office, Namakkal by means of surprise check on 07.01.2005 and 08.01.2005 respectively and seized Rs.1,44,106/- including the unclaimed amount of Rs.37,346/-together with certain documents from inside the Regional Transport Office. After seizure of the said money and documents, the Respondent/Police arrested the Petitioner and six others on suspicion that they are Touts/Agents/Brokers with intend to get personal benefits by bribing the officials of the Regional Transport Office.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that although the aforesaid amounts and as well as documents were seized from the officials of the Regional Transport Office, but the Respondent/Police had not arrested any one of the officials from the said office and they had not implicated them as one of the Accused in the charge sheet.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the allegation made against the Petitioner/A2 was that the Respondent/Police found an amount of Rs.1,050/-and six documents in his Handbag. But no seizure was effected from him. However, the Respondent/Police obtained the statement from P.W.7 as if he handed over the money Rs.300/-to the Petitioner for his service for handing over the said documents and bribing the RTO officials. If it was so, then, P.W.7 alone committed the aforesaid offence and not the Petitioner.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that P.W.12, P.W.21, P.W.23, P.W.27 and P.W.30 stated that they had given money to the Petitioner for bribing the amount to the RTO officials. However, they had not implicated as one of the accused in the aforesaid charge sheet, but they were included in the list of prosecution witnesses.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to contend that no witnesses were speak about the seizure of the documents and money from the Petitioner. As such, it was proved that the Respondent/ Police had not at all seized any documents and money from him. Consequently, the alleged offence under Sections 8 r/w.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not at all attracted in respect of the Petitioner.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable to Petitioner/A2 since admittedly, he is not a public servant.

9. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/A2 can pray for quashing of the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2006 on the file of trial Court at any stage of the main case.

10. Also that, since the alleged offences under Sections 8 r/w.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are not attracted against the Petitioner/A2, the Criminal Original Petition filed by him may be allowed by this Court, to promote substantial cause of Justice.

11. To lend support to the contention that the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not applicable to the Petitioner/A2, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the order of Patna High Court, dated 06.12.2005, (between Kumar Suman Singh V. State of Bihar