PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE accused -petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.316/2009 registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act). It is to be noted that during the course of pendency of this petition after investigation charge -sheet for the aforesaid offence was filed against the petitioner on 26.6.2014 before the trial Court and now petitioner has also prayed that charge -sheet and the criminal proceedings subsequent thereto may also be quashed and set aside.
(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that a preliminary inquiry came to be registered on 17.10.2005 against the petitioner and two other persons namely Shri Sandeep Agrawal son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal and Shri Rajesh Tinker and on completion of preliminary inquiry aforesaid FIR came to be registered against them on 15.12.2009 for offence under Section 7 of the Act.
(3.) IT is an admitted fact that in the present case trap could not succeed as Shri Rajesh Tinker refused to accept the illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/ - from Shri Vishnu Agrawal. It is also an admitted fact that the ACB itself did not find commission of any offence by Shri Sandeep Agarwal son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal, whereas sanction under Section 19 of the Act to prosecute Shri Rajesh Tinker was refused, whereas prosecution sanction was granted to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offence on 14.10.2011 by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. As per the first information report and charge -sheet, it has been found by the investigating agency that on 20.02.2008 petitioner was also present alongwith others when samples were from the taken from Aata Factory of Shri Makkhan Lal Sharma and on the basis of alleged conversation between the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Agrawal, it was further found that the demand of gratification was made by the petitioner. The present petition has mainly been filed by the petitioner on the following grounds: - (1) From the alleged unverified conversations, it is not revealed that petitioner ever demanded gratification from the complainant or Shri Vishnu Agrawal. The conversations are not admissible in evidence and voice sample was not taken by the investigating officer from the petitioner to compare it with the disputed conversations. (2) Anti -Corruption Bureau itself has not found any criminality on the part of Shri Sandeep Agarwal son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal, whereas sanction was refused to prosecute Shri Rajesh Tinker. The case against the petitioner is similar to aforesaid persons and, therefore, he is also liable to be discharged on the ground of parity. (3) Prosecution sanction dated 23.7.2012 against the petitioner has been granted by the Additional Commissioner, whereas he was not competent to grant the same. It has been granted mechanically without application of mind only on the basis of draft sanction provided by the Department. (4) There was no occasion on the part of the petitioner to demand gratification from the complainant or Shri Vishnu Agrawal as no work of them was pending with the petitioner and samples so taken by Shri Sandeep Agarwal son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal were deposited by him within the prescribed time. No recovery of any type was made from the petitioner. (5) As per prosecution case as many as four CDs were prepared during investigation, but only two CDs have been filed before the trial Court alongwith the charge -sheet. The CDs submitted before the trial Court, copy of which has also been provided to the petitioner, did not contain any conversations between the petitioner and the complainant or Shri Vishnu Agarwal and no evidence, even prima facie, is available on record showing involvement of the petitioner in the said incident. (6) Complainant -Shri Makkhan Lal Sharma lodged the complaint dated 20.02.2008 before the Additional SP Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore at his residence which is not a police station and it has not been explained as to how the complainant reached to the residence of a specific Police Officer, who even carried official digital tape recorder with him. It is thus clear that the complainant and the aforesaid officer had animus against the petitioner and his colleagues and they were any how bent upon to frame them up in a well planned conspiracy. (7) Complainant -Shri Makkhan Lal Sharma and Shri Vishnu Agrawal have since then expired and, therefore, no material witness is available with the prosecution to support the case against the petitioner. (8) Even if the allegations made in the FIR and evidence collected during investigation are taken on their face value and accepted to be correct and true in their entirety, even then no offence is disclosed against the petitioner. (9) Undue delay has been made not only in registration of the FIR, but also for submission of charge -sheet. For the alleged offence dated 20.02.2008, after conducting preliminary inquiry, FIR was registered on 15.12.2009 and now charge -sheet has been filed on 26.6.2014. Both FIR and charge -sheet and subsequent criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of delay alone. ;