Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.)Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central Bureau of Investigation Cases), Jammu whereby the petitioner has been charged under Sections 120-B, 161 RPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of J&K P.C. Act, Samvat.2006.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner in the year 2012 posted as Scientific Assistant-I, Plant Quarantine, Chaka Da Bagh, Poonch on deputation basis for a period of one month. It is further stated that a written complaint was lodged by one Sh. J. P. Singh (complainant) against the accused, namely Boota Singh, Assistant Plant Protection Officer at Chaka Da Bagh, Poonch, that, the complainant was engaged in import and export of goods and on 08.06.2012 the trucks carrying "Imli? across Poonch-Rawalkot were stopped by accused Boota Singh, who demanded bribe and refused to grant the clearance/plant health certificate. On the basis of said complaint, a formal FIR has been registered against the accused Boota Singh by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Jammu bearing No.RC0042012A0007 dated 14.06.2012 under Sections 120-B, 161 RPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of J&K P.C.Act, Samvat 2006. As per the complainant, he refused to pay the bribe, as a result of which, the trucks were recalled back to protect the perishable goods. In the complaint, the complainant has made a specific allegation against the accused Boota Singh and has not said anything against the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the said FIR, pre-trap proceeding was conducted by the respondent on 14.06.2012 and after completion of the same, a trap was laid on the same day by the respondent against the accused Boota Singh. As per the investigation conducted by respondent/CBI, the complainant met the accused Boota Singh in his office on 14.06.2012. The complainant enquired about the exact amount to be paid as a bribe to accused Boota Singh and in his reply the accused Boota Singh told the complainant to contact one Sh. Sheraj Ahmed Khan. However, the conversation between Boota Singh and J.P.Singh could not be recorded as electronic device was not allowed to be carried inside at the Trade Facility Centre. It is further stated that the complainant on the direction of accused Boota Singh contacted PW Sheraj Ahmad Khan on his mobile but Sheraj Ahmad Khan told the complainant that he would contact him in the afternoon. The said Sheraj Ahmad Khan contacted Sh. J.P.Singh (complainant) on his mobile phone at around 3pm and told the complainant to pay Rs.200/- per truck to accused Boota Singh. The said conversation between Sheraj Ahmed Khan and the complainant J.P.Singh was also recorded. After conducting the pre-trap proceedings, the complainant along with the shadow witness, on 14.06.2012, reached Poonch in the rented accommodation where accused Boota Singh and the petitioner resided. It is further contended that both accused Boota Singh and the petitioner herein were on deputation for a period of one month as Scientific Assistant-I, and as Assistant Plant Protection, Plant Quarantine, Chak Da Bagh, Poonch respectively and jointly resided in the same rented accommodation at Poonch. As per the prosecution story, the accused Boota Singh demanded money from the complainant and the same was recovered from the pocket of the airbag of the petitioner kept in the room. It has further come in the investigation that during the post-trap proceedings a digital voice recorder was placed in the front rear right pocket of the plant of the complainant in 'switch on' position and the whole of the post-trap proceedings regarding the conversation between the complainant and the accused Boota Singh was recorded. It has come in the recording that accused Boota Singh demanded the bribe and same was accepted by the petitioner. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Boota Singh and the petitioner herein. Thereafter, arguments on charge were also heard by the trial Court and the petitioner was charged under Section 120-B, 161 RPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006.
(3.)The petitioner has challenged the order of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI cases), Jammu dated 30.08.2013 by virtue of which charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 120-B, 161 RPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 on the following among other grounds:
(i) That as per the complaint, there is no allegation of demand of bribe against the petitioner and moreover there is no allegation that the petitioner had ever stopped the trucks of the complainant. In the complaint also it was a specifically alleged by the complainant against the accused Boota Singh that he had demanded the bribe and also stopped the trucks carrying 'Imli', as such, the ingredients of Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B, 161 RPC against the petitioner is not at all attracted and on this ground alone the charge against the petitioner required to be quashed.

(ii) That there is not even a single witness in the whole of the challan which implicate that the petitioner is in conspiracy with the accused Boota Singh for the demand of bribe or petitioner have any knowledge of the same prior to the alleged occurrence. That even during the post-trap proceedings, it has not been said by any witness, even by the complainant also, that the petitioner has demanded any money from the complainant. As such the ingredients of Section 120-B are not at all attracted in the present case and on this ground charge against the petitioner is required to be set aside.

(iii) That as per the translated version of the voice recording, which was made during the post trap proceedings, it was clear that even Boota Singh has specifically denied the acceptance of the money.

(iv) That in the whole of the challan CBI fails to produce/record any evidence regarding the elements of conspiracy between the accused Boota Singh and petitioner as such finding of the learned Judge charging petitioner under Section 120-B is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(v) That as per the post trap proceedings, it has come on record that when the complainant took out the money and showed it to the accused Boota Singh, the accused Boota Singh replied "Eh tuhadi khushi aa sanu ehdi koi lor nai."