IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37859 of 2008 SUNIL KUMAR MEHTA S/O LATE JANKI RAM,VILLAGE- AKBARPUR,P.S.AKBARPUR,DT.NAWADAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE. ----------- 2 12.11.2008 Heard. Petitioner is in custody in Vigilance P.S.Case No.46/2008 which is under Sections 7,13(2) of the Public Corruption Act. The case is that the petitioner was approached by the complainant for getting the land which was purchased by him through two sale-deeds mutated in his name. It is not denied that the petitioner is a Government servant to carry out the request and process the proposal of mutation and make a report even after holding inspection, if necessary. The allegation is that for performing his official duties, the petitioner sought gratification of Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand) from the complainant Ramadhin Kumar. The above named complainant requested the petitioner either not to demand money or to lessen the amount. But the petitioner did not scale down the amount. Accordingly, the complainant approached the Supdt. of Police, Vigilance, who acted by constituting a team and a trap was led to nab the present petitioner who was caught with the bribe money. The contention is that the petitioner was never approached by the complainant which he now claims to have made and in fact there is no application made by the complainant to mutate his name. Further contention is that the complainant was aggrieved on account of the fact that he wanted two decimals of public land to be mutated in his favour, which was refused by the 2 petitioner by making negative report against him and as such a false and fabricated case has been lodged. Further contention is that the complainant is the grand-son of an Ex-MLA and so he did his own, according to his own wishes. Sri Ramadhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 7 of the Public Corruption Act and has submitted that on account of the fact that no proposal or application from the complainant was pending or received by the petitioner for mutation. There was no motive or reward for performing official public duty. If one considers the provision of Section 7 of the Public Corruption Act, one could find that there were two words used by the legislature-“doing” or “forbearing to do any official act” to be done in future and if a public servant is found taking gratification in doing any official act which could be offered to him, then this offence is also decided by the Public Corruption Act. The very facts of the present case indicate that the complainant had simply approached the petitioner with a request that the lands purchased by him be mutated in his name. It is true that the complainant had not made any formal application on his behalf for mutation of his name and simply approached the petitioner with an oral request. In such cases, I believe that the complainant approached the officials of the rank of the present petitioner and after getting a nod in that behalf, simply handed over the documents in the custody of the officials who fill up the proforma. The petitioner at the very thrash hold was seeking a reward and 3 that was only for performing his official duty. The complainant might have approached the Vigilance officials for seeking the work done in his favour from the petitioner. But the team of the Vigilance Department which was conducting the allegation which was necessary for deciding the veracity of the offence, had to submit their report to pursue the matter in detail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner , if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after April,2009. SKBOSE (Dharnidhar Jha)