1 Criminal Writ Petition No.980/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.980 OF 2010 Aniruddha s/o Madhavrao Samudre ... PETITIONER VERSUS The Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption, Pune and another ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate for petitioner Shri Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for R.No.1. Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for R.No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The petitioner, Superintendent of Central Excise, working at the relevant time at Jalna, seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.RC/Pune/2010/A-0010, registered at the instance of respondent No.2 Nandkishore Agrawal, dated 28.9.2010 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Based on a complaint by respondent No.2 Nandkishore Agrawal, a trap was arranged. The complaint specifically referred two officers having visited and witnesses 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.980/2010 also visited the premises/ factory unit of the complainant in his absence. Consequent upon the complaint, pre-trap formalities were completed and in the raid, it is alleged, Deepakkumar Bisht, one of the officer of the Department was found actually accepting bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant, in the presence of the accused/ petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner submits, there was no demand, no acceptance from the accused/ petitioner. The verification or the pre-trap panchanama do not figure name of the accused/petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply of the officer Rajpal Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. says that it was by gesture the accused/ petitioner had agreed to get the share from the bribe amount. 4. My attention was invited to a taperecorded conversation between the accused/ petitioner Aniruddha Samudre and complainant Nandkishore Agrawal. Learned counsel submits that, there is no word of demand in the said conversation. 5. On overall reading of the said conversation, it, in unmistakable terms suggests, there was a demand or the accused/ petitioner desired his share in the booty that was to be 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.980/2010 collected by Deepakkumar Bisht. The complainant specifically stated that Rs.20,000/- is to be paid and the accused/ petitioner informs how to avoid such eventualities of persistent raids the demands are to be complied with. There was no reason for the accused/ petitioner, a superior officer of the rank of Superintendent to allow his subordinate to accept Rs.20,000/- in his chamber. The map annexed at charge sheet at Page 28 illustrate, the complainant was sitting next to the petitioner in his seat and the bribe amount was accepted immediately in his front while employee of the said complainant was behind him. The acceptance of the bribe by Deepakkumar Bisht in the office of accused/ petitioner coupled with the taperecorded conversation illustrate that the accused/ petitioner was part of the conspiracy to accept the bribe from the complainant through Deepakkumar Bisht, who was junior to the petitioner. The petitioner was naturally treated to be one of the accused in terms of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 7, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At this stage of the matter, it cannot be said that there is no material against the accused/ petitioner and the prosecution is false. The material is sufficient for the learned Special Judge to frame charge. It may be that the accused/ petitioner ultimately will be acquitted, however, for that purpose, exercise of powers under Section 482 of the 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.980/2010 Criminal Procedure Code is not required to be followed. Consequently, Writ Petition lacks merits, dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) fmp/cwp980.10