The essential ingredients of demand and acceptance must be established, but the lack of support from a witness does not necessarily lead to the quashing of the entire proceeding.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - A petition under Section 482 is moved at the behest of the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.29 of 2011 corresponding to Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.29 of 2011 pending in the file of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur on the stated grounds.

2. The Vigilance case was instituted on the basis of a written report lodged before the DSP (Vigilance), Phulbani Unit on 23rd June, 2011 with the allegation made therein regarding the illegal demand of Rs.23,000/- as bribe by the petitioner from the informant towards new electricity connection for a welding shop and in that regard, a trap was laid by the Vigilance team and allegedly the said amount was recovered from the petitioner and the same was seized. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was chargesheeted under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) besides Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988( in short 'the P.C. Act').

3. The challenge in the present case is that the informant did not support the alleged trap and recovery of the bribe amount from the petitioner while being examined during investigation and therefore, the entire prosecution would now have to depend on the evidence of the over-hearing witness but the same is not sufficient to prove and establish the fact of illegal demand of bribe and its acceptance which are the essential ingredients to be satisfied. According to the petitioner, after such hostile testimony of the informant not supporting the trap, no cogent and credible evidence left to criminally prosecute the petitioner with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

4. Heard Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pani, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department.

5. Mr. Mund, while advancing an argument refers to the statement of the over-hearing witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as at Annexure-3 to contend that by such testimony, it would not be possible for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner as he was not present at the spot but at a distance along with the members of the Vigilance unit. It is further contended that when the informant has not supported the alleged trap and since the testimony of the over-hearing witness is of no use and of any value to prove the demand and acceptance, the continuation of the vigilance proceeding would become an abuse of process of law and therefore, it should be quashed by exercising the Court's inherent jurisdiction. In fact, Mr. Mund apprised the Court that the informant was also prosecuted as an accused after having turned hostile which was challenged in Criminal Revision No.1021 of 2017 and this Court by judgment dated 25th July, 2018 quashed the proceeding and discharged him.

6. Mr. Pani, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department on the other hand submitted that on such a ground, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be quashed even though the informant did not support the trap, inasmuch as, there is other evidence on record to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. While contending so, Mr. Pani placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vrs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 3 SSC 220.

7. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in State through CBI Vrs. Anup Kumar Srivastava AIR 2017 SC 3698. t is further contended that in order to prove an offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act, it must be proved that the person alleged of has obtained pecuniary advantage including a valuable thing either for himself or for any other person by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position as a public servant or without any public interest and none of the above ingredients are available in the present case even on a reading of the FIR and charges