Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.
(2.) The First Information Report of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 25 of 2013 (corresponding to Special Case No. 01 of 2013) instituted under Ss. 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well as under Sec. 29 of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1883 and also under Ss. 8, 10 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was sought to be quashed on the ground that taking the entire allegations to be true, no offence is made out either under Ss. 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as necessary ingredients, constituting those offences are never there in the first information report. Similar is situation with respect to offence under Sec. 29 of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, as the petitioner never happened to be a dealer under the 'Bihar Public Distribution System' and at the same time, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on account of the fact that the person, who raided the premises of M/s. Mahavir Prasad Sarawgi, to which this petitioner is one of the partners, was not authorized to make search and seizure and that the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not attracted.
(3.) In support of the submission, learned counsel referred to a decision reported in, 2015 (4) Supreme Today 4 and 2015 (7) Supreme Today 414. In this regard, it had further been submitted that the petitioner being one of the partners, was never alleged in the first information report to have offered money to the informant, rather allegation of offering money was upon the three persons namely, Sanjiv Sharma, Alok Sharma and Sri Ram, who are said to be the representatives of the firm M/s. Mahavir Prasad Sarawgi.;