The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a trap case involving strong prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, the defense's claim of false implication and complaints to the Vigilance Officer did not warrant further investigation under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. SOLANKI, J.

1. Applicant has preferred this revision petition under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 26-5-2015 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal in Case No. SC/CBI/2/2015 whereby the application filed by him under section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code for passing the order of further investigation has been rejected.

2. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that applicant was working as General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal. During 26-12-2011 to 22-3-2014 on deputation from Department of Telecommunication under Ministry of Communication and I.T while posted and functioning as General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Officer, Bhopal he was the overall In-charge of Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal. On 24-8-2012 Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal floated a tender notice for sale of wheat to bulk consumers/traders under OMSS (D). Subsequently, many other similar tenders were also floated. Clause -K of the tender reads as follows :-

"K. Buyer will make his own arrangement for transport and will not be entitled to claim any facility or assistance for transport from the Food Corporation of India. Delivery of the stocks will be made duly loaded in the trucks of the tenderers at the cost of Food Corporation of India."

3. Complainant Pawan Jindal, Director, R. B. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. participated in these tenders. This company and 16 associate companies purchased wheat against tenders of Food Corporation of India during 9-12-2012 to 15-3-2013. As per the tender conditions, loading charges for the purchased wheat were to be done by Food Corporation of India, however, the same were borne by the complainant and 'firms related to him'. The complainant deposited the refund claims/bills of wheat, in the Food Corporation of India, Head (Regional) Office. The total amount of such bills was approximately Rs. 85 lakhs.

4. It is further alleged that applicant demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from Pawan Jindal for clearing payment of the refund claims as made by him. Subsequently, the applicant agreed to receive part payment of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant on 22-3-2014. On that date, a trap was arranged. The complainant went to the residence of the applicant and placed two packets containing Rs. 5 lakhs in a chair in the house of applicant. He thereafter signalled the raid party, who seized Rs. 5 lakhs in two packets from a chair in the house of the applicant.

5. The conversations recorded during the transactions of the bribe between the complainant and the accused, statement of shadow eye witness, statement of complainant, the sequence of events and recovery of bribe amount found lying on the chair kept in the drawing hall of residence of accused, proved that the accused had knowingly received the bribe amount of Rs. 5 Lakh in two envelopes from the complainant. As explained in the above para, the witness Shri Mukesh Malviya had physically delivered bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakh to the complainant in the presence of the accused. Further, the tainted bribe amount of Rs. 5 Lakh was recovered while the same was found kept in two open envelopes on a chair in the drawing room of the accused in the immediate presence of the accused and the complainant. Moreover, there is nothing in the live recording of conversation, to contradict, the statement of complainant. Therefore, even though the tainted bribe amount was not touched by the accused, the acceptance of bribe amount on the part of accused is well established.

6. The voice samples of complainant and questioned recorded voices, i.e. the recorded conversations held between the complainant and the accused during verification proceedings and post trap proceedings as available in the memory cards, were sent to the CFSL, New Delhi for expert opinion. The Forensic Voice Examination Report No. CFSL-2014/P-0723 dated 3-9-2014 of the VFSL, New Delhi confirmed that the aud