Ashok Kumar Choudhary v. Central Bureau Of Investigation / Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

#1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarti, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aakash Prashad, Advocate and Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate, learned counsel representing respondent/Central Bureau Of Investigation and perused the records.

#2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 05.02.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, CBI, Court No.4, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.36 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No.RC00662023A0030 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences and has summoned the petitioner to face the trial. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 28.12.2023 submitted by the CBI after conducting investigation in furtherance of the aforesaid F.I.R., along with all consequential proceedings.

#3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Abhinav Chaubey, Proprietor- Nirmal Enterprises, gave a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Lucknow stating that his firm had been awarded a tender for supply of transformers to North-Eastern 2 A482 No. 10203 of 2024 Railways, Gorakhpur and a purchase order dated 03.04.2023 was issued for supplying 32 transformers of 25 KV each. He had submitted a final bill through online mode on 31.10.2023 which was pending in the accounts section. The applicant Ashok Kumar Choudhary working the accounts section was demanding Rs.32,000/- bribe through Jitendra. The complainant stated that the applicant had demanded bribe directly also through whatsapp calls made on 05.12.2023 and 07.12.2023 and had directed him to transfer the money to google pay account of co-accused Jitendra. Thereafter Jitendra has also made several phone calls/whatsapp calls demanding bribe for the applicant Ashok Kumar Choudhary. trap was set up. The complainant

#4. After discreet verification of the complaint, an F.I.R. was lodged on transferred 13.12.2023. A Rs.7,000/- to the co-accused Jitendra Kumar Srivastava through google pay. The co-accused Jitendra was arrested from his residence at about 7.30 p.m. on 14.12.2023 and the applicant was arrested at about 11.30 p.m. on the same date from the Irrigation Department's Guest House after calling him there from his office.

#5. After investigation the CBI has submitted a charge-sheet dated 28.12.2012 and the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offences by the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 nd has summoned the applicant to face the trial. it has inter alia been stated numerous

#6. The C.B.I. has filed a counter affidavit opposing the application wherein telephone conversations have been recorded which established the demand of bribe made by the petitioner. It is only regarding a voice identification memo dated 21.12.2023 that the name of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Srivastava has been typed inadvertently in place of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Choudhary. However, the rest of the However, the rest of the conversations have taken place between the complainant and the petitioner, the transcripts whereof have been annexed with the counter affidavit. The established demand of bribe made by the petitioner for processing the bills of the complainant. transcripts of conversations prima

#7. Assailing the validity of the charge-sheet and the cognizance summoning order, Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requisite sanction for prosecution has not been taken as required by Section 17-A of 3 A482 No. 10203 of 2024 Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings including carrying out investigation, submission of charge sheet and taking cognizance of the offences stand vitiated.

#8. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bribe money has allegedly been demanded and received by the co-accused Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and not by the petitioner. Co-accused Jitendra is a freelancer working for several suppliers, including the complainant and he has acted as an authorized representative for the complainant also. He has further submitted that no money has been transferred or paid to the petitioner and nothing has been recovered from him.

#9. Sri. Chakravarty has thirdly submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.12.2023 at 16.35 Hrs. whereas the petitioner had already processed the complainant's bill on 13.12.2023 at 09.18.28 Hrs. After having processed the bills the petitioner had no occasion to demand any bribe for passing the bill.

#10. The fourth submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CBI has admitted in the counter affidavit that the telephonic conversation of the complainant has wrongly been referred to as a conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, whereas the conversation was in fact between the complainant and the co- accused Jitendra. Therefore, there is no material to connect the complainant with the commission of the alleged offence.

#11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that although it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had made phone calls on 05.12.2023 and 07.12.2023 to the complainant for demanding bribe, there is no material to establish this allegation.