The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the need for independent application of mind by the competent authority for granting or refusing prosecution sanction.

Surya Kant, J.

1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated February 24, 2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Punjab at Patiala whereby he has refused to accept the final closure report No. 1 dated 30-1-2003 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the Investigating Agency, namely, the C.B.I., Chandigarh in relation to a case registered vide FIR/RC No. 26/96-CHG dated 1-5-1996 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which originally emanated from a case registered vide FIR No. 3/97, PS Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.

2. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. the petitioner who was working as a Junior Telecom Officer at Sirhind, was caught red handed by the Vigilance Bureau while demanding and accepting Rs. 500/-as illegal gratification from Shri Parveen Kumar (respondent No. 2) for shifting telephone No. 40365. The further allegations were that the petitioner despite holding the charge of JTO (Indoor) as well as JTO (Outdoor) at the relevant time did not shift the telephone No. 40365 on the request of respondent No. 2 from one premises to the other and rather demanded Rs. 1,000/- for shifting the same. A bargain was struck and the petitioner allegedly agreed to shift the telephone on payment of Rs. 500/- when respondent No. 2 contacted the petitioner again on 12-2-1996 at 9.00 a.m. on the advice of his neighbour, namely, shri Sukhwant Singh not to pay the bribe money, respondent No. 2 along with the said Shri Sukhwant Singh, contacted the Vigilance Bureau at Fatehgarh Sahib on 12-2-1996 itself and lodged a complaint as well as produced currency notes for trapping the petitioner. The DSP, Vigilance Bureau, after making pre-trapping formalities and joining independent witnesses, trapped the petitioner and caught him red handed while demanding and accepting Rs. 500/- from respondent No. 2. Thereafter the DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab transferred this case to the C.B.I. for investigation after registering FIR No. 3/97 at P. S. Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.

3. The matter was investigated by the C.B.I. for a period of over six years. After thorough investigation, the C.B.I. submitted closure report dated February 14, 2003 (Annexure P-2) with a prayer "that the case may kindly be closed and the documents seized may also be ordered to be returned to the respective departments. Hand-wash and pant pocket wash nips also be ordered to be destroyed as per law. "The C.B.I. in its closure report stated that Shri Sukhwant Singh, shadow witness contradicted the statement of Shri Parveen Kumar, complainant (respondent No. 2) and Trap Laying Officer (TLO) and stated as under :-

-

"Sh. Sukhwant Singh, shadow witness contradicted the statement of Sh. Parveen Kumar complainant and TLO and stated that he was in the market when the bribe money was demanded and accepted by the JTO. He stated that the hand and pocket of the accused were not washed before him and two bottles containing pinkish solution had already kept on the floor when he reached inside the room of JTO. According to him, the certain papers were got signed by him under pressure and he was not award of the content of these papers."

"Sh. Surjit Singh, independent witness stated that tainted money from the possession of the JTO was not recovered before him and the recovered money was in the hand of TLO when he reached the office of JTO," "according to the statement of TLO, all the members of the trap party including the complainant and the shadow witness left for the JTO office in the Govt. vehicle whereas according to the statement of complainant and shadow witness, both of them went on their scooter and the other team member came in a official jeep." "there was also contradiction on the approximate time when the trap team left the O/O VB for the JTO office. According to the DSP, the team left the office