At the stage of framing charges, the court must only apply the test of a prima facie case; the defense of the accused cannot be considered, and evidence of demand combined with recovery is sufficient to proceed to trial.

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for seeking following relief(s):

That this is an application for quashing of order dated 27.06.2025 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge XIV, Cum Special Judge (VIGILANCE), Bhagalpur in the discharge petition filed by petitioner dated 06-01-2025 in Special Case no 19 of 2022 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No-39 of 2022 under section 7(a)/7(b)/7(c)/12 of the P.C. Act 1988.

3. The facts giving rise to the present application is that the prosecution case arises from a written complaint dated 08.07.2022 submitted by the informant, Shiv Kumar Verma, a licensed contractor under the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar (Registration No. 2150291), before the Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-Station House Officer, Vigilance Police Station, Patna. The informant alleged that he had been awarded a contract under Agreement No. 23 SBD PMGSY-2019-2020 for construction work under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (Package No. BR 01R 400). On 04.07.2022, he visited the Divisional Office, Rural Works Department, Araria, for release of his final payment. It is alleged that the petitioner, Phuleshwar Rajak (Junior Engineer), along with the concerned SDO and Assistant Engineer, demanded commission for clearing the final bill. According to the complaint, Rs. 62,000/- was allegedly demanded by the SDO and Rs. 40,000/- by the petitioner. Being unwilling to pay the alleged bribe, the informant approached the Vigilance authorities seeking legal action.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the entire story of the prosecution is false and there is no material to show that there was any occasion for the petitioner to demand the amount so alleged.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party has filed a counter affidavit in which there is a transcript attached, which clearly states that the petitioner had neither demanded Rs. 40,000 (Forty Thousand) for himself nor he demanded Rs. 62,000(Sixty two Thousand) for his superiors. It is further submitted that the Investigating officer has failed to produce the documents and bills. It is next submitted that from the post-trap proceedings, it appears highly doubtful that the petitioner was allegedly found sitting on a chair holding Rs. 40,000 in his left hand, particularly when he had already been intercepted nearly an hour earlier, which renders the prosecution story ironical and improbable. The manner of interception suggests a mechanical implication by the police without credible basis. The petitioner was, in fact, discharging his official duties and was engaged in discussion and guidance regarding work matters with two contractors, namely Shri Mithlesh Jha and Shri Chandan Kumar Singh, at his residence. The informant allegedly entered the premises without being called, despite having no departmental work pending with the petitioner. The petitioner has thus been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, P.C. Act) are not attracted in the present case, as the petitioner never attempted to obtain any undue advantage, which is evident from the recorded conversation itself, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 7(a); furth