Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 505 (GUJ)

UMESHKUMAR GOPICHAND GOEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2013-08-16

K.M.THAKER

body2013
JUDGMENT K.M. THAKER, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Raval, learned APP, and Mr. Ravani, learned counsel, waive service of Rule for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 1.1 In present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as “the Code”], the petitioner initially, prayed, inter alia, that:- “10(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of Special Case No.25/2005 as well as application below Exh.20 pending in the court of the Ld. Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No.3, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2010 and consequential order passed by the Ld. Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No.3, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad on application below Ex.20, in the interest of justice.” 1.2 Subsequently, the petitioner [hereinafter referred to as “the accused” or “the petitioner”] had prayed for permission to amend the petition. It appears that the request was granted vide order dated 21.6.2011. In view of the said order dated 21.6.2011, the petitioner added certain grounds in the memo of the petition and also prayed for additional relief, i.e. paragraph 10(AA), which reads thus:- “10(AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being RC 23/A/2004/GNR dated 26.9.2004 registered with CBI, Gandhinagar Police Station and proceedings thereunder, in the interest of justice.” 2. As can be seen from the relief prayed for in the petition, the petitioner, initially, challenged the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.25 of 2005. The said order came to be passed by the learned trial court below Exh.20 being the application tendered by present petitioner under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking discharge from the said Special Case No.25 of 2005 and the learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and the CBI, dismissed the application vide order dated 23.3.2010, which is impugned in present petition and during pendency of present petition, the petitioner – accused challenged the FIR dated 26.9.2004, which came to be registered with CBI, Gandhinagar Police Station. 3. 3. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and appropriate to mention that after investigation, the CBI has filed charge sheet alleging offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the CBI named present petitioner as one of the two accused persons. At the relevant time, the petitioner, i.e. accused No.1, was, Joint Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs at Nasik. The petitioner – accused No.1 was arrested on 27.9.2004 and was released on bail on 8.10.2004 and vide impugned order dated 23.3.2010, the learned trial court has refused to discharge the petitioner – accused No.1 from the criminal case. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it is averred by the petitioner that the informant (who is Police Inspector, CBI), alleged that the petitioner had offered illegal gratification (bribe) of Rs.2 Lacs for showing favour to the petitioner in the inquiry which was being conducted against him in connection with alleged possession of assets disproportionate to petitioner's income. The investigation against present petitioner was initiated in light of the allegation that he possessed assets worth more than about Rs.5 crores. The said informant alleged that he was unwilling to accept the said illegal gratification (bribe) and informed the matter to CBI, who purportedly arranged a trap. The informant alleged that CBI had initiated inquiry against present petitioner in connection with allegations about possession of assets disproportionate to his assets and the informant, being Police Inspector, CBI, was associated with the said inquiry against present petitioner and that therefore, present petitioner on his own offered bribe to him i.e. the informant who reported the matter, hence trap was arranged and during the trap arranged by the CBI, the petitioner was apprehended. Subsequently, the CBI investigated the entire case and based on the investigation, charge sheet bearing RC 23/A/2004 GNR was submitted and it came to be registered as Special Case No.25 of 2005. The petitioner has claimed that he had no reason to offer bribe to the complainant and the complainant has concocted the entire story with a view to improve his own image and establish that he is plain, clear and honest officer who, even upon being offered bribe in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs, refused to accept the said bribe. The petitioner has claimed that he had no reason to offer bribe to the complainant and the complainant has concocted the entire story with a view to improve his own image and establish that he is plain, clear and honest officer who, even upon being offered bribe in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs, refused to accept the said bribe. The petitioner has also claimed and alleged that actually, the said informant himself has tainted service record and for a long time, the petitioner's name remained on the list prepared by CBI, i.e. the list commonly known as “List of Officers with Doubtful Integrity”, and with a view to clearing that image, the said complainant created the case against present petitioner. 4.1 The petitioner has further claimed that the CBI filed charge sheet against two persons, i.e. himself and one other accused person. It is also claimed that the said other accused person had submitted application under Section 227 of the Code with a request to discharge him from the criminal case and that the same learned Judge, who rejected his (i.e. present petitioner's) application under Section 227 of the Code (vide impugned order dated 23.3.2010), allowed the said application of the said other accused, however, petitioner's application came to be rejected on unjustified and unsustainable ground. 4.2 With such factual background, the petitioner has, in present petition, prayed that he may be discharged and the proceedings pursuant to the FIR may be quashed. 5. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, has appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent CBI and Mr. Raval, learned APP, has appeared fro the respondent – State. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention at the outset that Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI, has raised objection that though several serious allegations have been made by the petitioner against the informant, the said informant is not impleaded in present proceedings. 7. In present petition, the petitioner – accused No.1, has averred that:- “4. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention at the outset that Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI, has raised objection that though several serious allegations have been made by the petitioner against the informant, the said informant is not impleaded in present proceedings. 7. In present petition, the petitioner – accused No.1, has averred that:- “4. The petitioner respectfully submits that present petitioner had submitted an application below Exh.20 for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.P.C. from Special Case No.25/2005, contending inter alia that the entire charge sheet and the documents of Special Case No.25/2005 do not constitute any offence against the petitioner; that complicity of the petitioner with the case was not made out; that there was no material and legal evidence on record to indicate that any bribe was given to the complainant; the complainant had suppressed the part of those conversations by which it can be proved that the complainant was demanding money by way of extortion; that audio of video taken on 26.09.2004 i.e. on the date of incident has been tampered with a view to suppress the conversation which would prove that the petitioner – accused is an innocent; one of the two panch witness who had watched the video recording of alleged scene of offence on TV with volume intentionally kept by CBI Inspector on mute position and therefore, could not hear anything; another panch did not witness any video recording and did not hear the conversation; the complainant has suppressed a call made by him from telephone in Ahmedabad from Phone No.079-27504094 to the Mobile No.9890494989 of the petitioner – accused on 08.09.2004 when the complainant reiterated his demand of extortion money; the evidence of videography is not the reliable evidence as the audio part of video copy supplied to petitioner – accused is not decipherable; between the scene of complainant talking on the one hand and someone keeping something on the table and its being shoot in the video on the other, there is a perceptible and clear break in the video recording; that the FIR was registered on 26.09.2004 at 10:00 hours and the name of petitioner was already mentioned as an accused in column no.7 of FIR and the complainant is a Police Officer and alleged conversation has taken place at 15:00 hours; thus, this is a statement of accused before a police officer after registration of FIR is a nullity in eye of law in view of Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act as well as Sec. 162 of Cr.P.C. conversation between complainant and the petitioner is not an evidence in eye of law even if the witness heard it and speak about it; that the statements of Roshan Jalius Kujur, Samir Basudev Saurav, R.K. Das – complainant and Rajiv Chandola are not admissible in evidence; that panchnama contains only the averment made by the complainant – police officer and statement of petitioner – accused before Investigating Officer which are hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act r/w. Sec. 162 of Cr.P.C. that the statement of panchas are nothing else but the above averments mentioned in panchnama that there was no material in the entire charge sheet which would permit the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner; that there was no material mentioned in the charge sheet regarding alleged conspiracy especially when another accused is already discharged; that there was no material to indicate as to how the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were made out against the petitioner.” 7.1 Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel has, during his submissions, reiterated the aforesaid details. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that in present case, there is no material / evidence to demonstrate existence of basic ingredients viz. demand, offer and acceptance. He submitted that there is not a single allegation that the petitioner acted in response to the demand. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that the informant has tainted service record and doubtful character, inasmuch as his name, for more than 5 to 6 years, remained on the list prepared by his department which enlist names of the officers, who according to the department, have doubtful integrity. According to learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Thakkar, any ingredient of alleged offence is not made out. During his submissions, Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, repeatedly and heavily emphasized that the integrity, service record and character of the informant are extremely doubtful and tainted and that therefore, any action based on complaint or allegation of such officer should not have been given credence and proceedings against present petitioner ought to have been terminated by discharging the petitioner from the criminal case. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, cited certain instances and submitted that the details of the said instances have become available to the petitioner pursuant to the application made by him under the Right to Information Act and according to the petitioner, certain departmental actions were initiated against the said informant on account of his conduct while on duty and during his service. 7.2 During his submissions, Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, has taken this Court at length through the entire Panchnama Part – I and Panchnama Part – II, which learned Senior Counsel read extensively / completely and for emphasizing certain parts of that panchnama, he reiterated those parts of panchnama during his submissions. On the strength of the panchnama, Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, claimed that audio and visual recording equipments were switched off and that therefore, the relevant and important part of the alleged trap have not been recorded and that consequently, there is no material to even suggest that the petitioner had actually offered any amount to the informant. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner all that is recorded and demonstrated is that a person arrived at the place where the informant and the petitioner were meeting and placed two boxes and then he left the place. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner all that is recorded and demonstrated is that a person arrived at the place where the informant and the petitioner were meeting and placed two boxes and then he left the place. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the events subsequent to the stage when the said other person left the place is not recorded on video recording equipment or on audio recording equipment and that therefore, there is no material to show that the two boxes which the said other person left contained any amount/currency notes as is being alleged in the charge sheet. During his submissions, Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, has described the entire chronology of events by reading the text/transcript of the recoded telephone conversation between the petitioner and the informant as well as the panchnama and submitted that only a part of events of the said meeting is recorded and the other part which is crucial and relevant, is not recorded because the equipments were switched off. He submitted that though this aspect was elaborately urged before the learned trial court at the time of hearing of petitioner's application under Section 227 of the Code, the learned trial court has ignored or overlooked the said details and has failed to appreciate the said aspect and without considering the details and its effect, the learned trial court has erroneously and without justification rejected petitioner's application under Section 227 of the Code and therefore, interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code is necessary. 7.3 Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner which would connect him to the alleged offence. He submitted that the entire case is based on the version of the complainant and the Investigating Officer. According to the petitioner, there is no base for suspicion against the petitioner. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the case against the petitioner is based on the statement of the co-accused and the case against the petitioner is substantially based on his statement/ admission before the police officer. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that the informant being an officer of CBI, is, actually, helped by the other officer of CBI, who arranged the trap and investigated the case against the petitioner. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that the informant being an officer of CBI, is, actually, helped by the other officer of CBI, who arranged the trap and investigated the case against the petitioner. He submitted that there is no evidence to suggest and demonstrate that the accused actually offered and gave any amount to the informant and where the alleged transaction was in response to the demand raised by the informant and that, therefore, in absence of such evidence, there is no material to proceed against the accused and therefore, the application Exh.20 preferred by the applicant ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that upon conclusion of the inquiry against the petitioner with reference to the alleged disproportionate income, the final report, which is submitted, declared that the petitioner did not have disproportionate income. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that the person who placed and left the two plastic bags which allegedly contained the cash in question is discharged. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that in the entire panchnama, the requisite ingredient is absent and that therefore also, there is no purpose in continuing the trial. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that present case falls squarely under the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal [1992 Suppl 1 SCC 335] and on the decision in the case between Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [ (2000) 8 SCC 590 ]. 8. Per contra, Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for respondent CBI, submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court below Exh.20, i.e. on present petitioner's application for discharge, is legal and proper and does not suffer from any error or infirmity. Mr. Ravani, learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner himself, in his discharge application Exh.20, claimed and asserted that the amount was extortion money which the applicant had forcefully demanded and that therefore, the petitioner's contention that there was no demand and the petitioner had offered the amount without any demand is unjustified and contrary to his own submissions before the learned trial court. 8.1 As regards the petitioners contention that the Investigating Officer was a colleague of the informant and was in his office and he helped the informant. Mr. 8.1 As regards the petitioners contention that the Investigating Officer was a colleague of the informant and was in his office and he helped the informant. Mr. Ravani, learned counsel submitted that the said allegation and submission is neither correct nor justified and in view of the procedure followed by the CBI in such cases, the said allegation is ill-founded and unsustainable. He further submitted that as per the practice followed by the CBI, the trap laying officer is not the Investigating Officer and the role/task of trap laying officer ends immediately after the trap is over. He also clarified that the investigation is always carried out by another officer higher in rank than the trap laying officer. 8.2 With reference to the detailed and prolonged submissions with reference to the panchnama, Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI, submitted that those aspects are matter of evidence and would be considered by the learned trial Judge at the trial and cannot be considered, at this stage. 8.3 Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI, also submitted that in present case, the petitioner, originally, challenged only the order under application Exh.20, however, subsequently, the petitioner amended the petition and has now challenged the FIR / complaint as well, however, in criminal matters, amendment is not permissible and there is no provision in the Code for amending the petition/ application. He further submitted that besides the said restriction, the petition with two causes is not tenable. 8.4 In this context, it is relevant to mention, at this stage, that from the record, it does not appear that at any point of time, the respondent CBI had opposed the request for said amendment and after the Court passed the order granting request for permission to amend the petition, the said order was never challenged by the respondent CBI. Therefore, at this stage of final hearing, the said objection is too late in time and therefore, it is not considered, at this stage. 8.5 Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the respondent CBI, submitted that the petition has been taken out with intention to delay the proceedings and therefore, it may not be entertained. 8.6 With reference to detailed submissions by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner about the alleged conduct of the informant (i.e. the submission alleging flaws in complainant's character and moral conduct), Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the respondent CBI, submitted that the petition has been taken out with intention to delay the proceedings and therefore, it may not be entertained. 8.6 With reference to detailed submissions by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner about the alleged conduct of the informant (i.e. the submission alleging flaws in complainant's character and moral conduct), Mr. Ravani, learned counsel, submitted that the character of the complainant or his conduct and that too in different and unconnected cases are not at all relevant in the petition under Section 482 of the Code. 8.7 Mr. Ravani, learned counsel, further submitted that the learned trial court has recorded reasons for not granting the petitioner's request for discharge. He also submitted that the same learned Judge had considered the application of the co-accused and when the learned trial court was satisfied that any offence against the said co-accused was not made out and the proceedings against the said co-accused would be exercise in futility, the learned Judge accepted the request and granted the application for discharge of the co-accused. However, in present case, learned Judge was not satisfied on any count and has recorded specific and legally sustainable reasons for not granting the application for discharge made by present petitioner. According to learned counsel for the CBI, the said aspect also demonstrates application of mind to the relevant factual aspects by the learned Judge. 8.8 In this context, it is relevant to mention that any allegation of bias or prejudice etc. is not raised at the time of hearing by the petitioner. Even any contention on ground of parity is also not raised at the time of hearing. 8.9 Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI, referred to the allegations in the charge sheet and he also assailed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the panchnama. He submitted that the details of the numbers of the currency notes which were seized by the officers during the trap are recorded and the numbers of the currency notes which were found in the car in which the petitioner had reached at the place agreed upon between him and complainant are also recorded which is sufficient to establish, prima facie, case to proceed against the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI, in support of his submissions, relied on the decisions in the case between Rumi Dhar (Smt) v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 364 ], Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ] and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ]. 9. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the respondent CBI at length and I have considered the submissions as well as the material obtaining on record of present petition. 9.1 At the outset, useful reference may be made to some observations by Hon'ble Apex Court which provide guidelines and explain the boundary to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy and another [ AIR 2004 SC 3967 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph No.8 that:- “8. As noted above the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint / F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court has always put a word of caution with regard to interference in the process of investigation or in the process of trial. In this context, it is relevant to take into consideration the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.30 of the decision in the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & anr vs. State of Andra Pradesh and anr. ( AIR 2008 SC 787 ), which reads thus: “30. In this context, it is relevant to take into consideration the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.30 of the decision in the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & anr vs. State of Andra Pradesh and anr. ( AIR 2008 SC 787 ), which reads thus: “30. A careful reading of the above noted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Emphasis supplied) 10. The factual backdrop of the case is that certain inquiry/investigation against the accused was in progress in the light of the allegations against present petitioner – accused that he (i.e. the accused) possesses property in excess of his income and that so as to get out of the said investigation/proceedings, the accused allegedly offered bribe in sum of Rs.2 lakh to the informant who, immediately after the said offer was made, reported the said matter and thereafter trap was arranged. According to the allegations against the accused, the informant was, at the relevant time, posted and functioning as Inspector, CBI, Gandhinagar and he (i.e. the informant) was the officer who was inquiring into the case registered against present accused. 10.1 The accused – petitioner was, at the relevant time, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs and he was posted at Surat. The case which was being inquired by the informant against present accused, was based on the allegation that the accused had gathered assets to the tune of about Rs.5.28 crore. According to the informant, the accused was making suggestions either on telephone or during his visits to CBI, Gandhinagar intimating that he wanted favour of the said inquiry being closed. 10.2 On 24.9.2004, the accused had allegedly contacted the informant on phone (land-line) at his residence and informed that he would visit/meet the informant on 26.9.2004. It appears that some discussion as to whether they should meet at Taj Hotel, Ahmedabad or elsewhere transpired between the accused and the informant and the informant allegedly asked the accused to visit him at his residence. The complainant allegedly reported the said discussion on 25.9.2004, i.e. next day and therefore, the trap was arranged on 26.9.2004, i.e. the date on which the accused was to call on/meet the informant. The complainant allegedly reported the said discussion on 25.9.2004, i.e. next day and therefore, the trap was arranged on 26.9.2004, i.e. the date on which the accused was to call on/meet the informant. It is also claimed that one Mr. Chandola, Inspector, CBI on 26.9.2004, arranged for presence of two persons to act as panch-witnesses and made the arrangements for the trap. It appears that on 26.9.2004, after reaching Ahmedabad, the accused contacted the informant on his telephone (land-line) when the accused asked the informant to meet him at Hotel Haveli, Gandhinagar. The informant refused and asked the accused to visit him at his house if at all he i.e. accused wanted to meet him i.e. the informant. The informant allegedly gave the details about his residential address to the accused and thereafter the accused went to the house of the informant. While in the residence of the informant, the accused contacted another person (i.e. the person who was named as accused No.2) on his mobile phone and as per the instructions given by the accused to the said other person, he (i.e. the said other person) brought two polythene bags at the residence of the informant and placed it on the table where the accused and the informant were sitting and then he (i.e. the other person) returned to the taxi (in which the accused had reached residence of the informant) which was parked near the informant's residence. It is also alleged that one of the two bags contained sweets and the other bag contained Rs.2 lakh. It is alleged that thereafter the accused started to leave the residence of the informant when he was caught by the officers of CBI for offering and giving bribe of Rs.2 lakh to the informant. The officers who were part of the trap, also caught the said other person (i.e. the co-accused) and also seized the other amount/cash from the car/taxi as well. Subsequently, investigation was carried out and thereafter the charge sheet, which narrated all relevant details/allegations, came to be filed and both accused were arrested on 27.9.2004 and the accused – petitioner was released on bail on 8.10.2004, whereas the said other person, i.e. co-accused was released on bail on 30.9.2004. 10.3 Thereafter, the said person, i.e. co-accused submitted an application under Section 227 of the Code and requested for discharge. 10.3 Thereafter, the said person, i.e. co-accused submitted an application under Section 227 of the Code and requested for discharge. The said application was filed somewhere in May, 2007 and after considering the facts of the case and the material on record and the submissions on behalf of the said other person (i.e. co-accused), the learned trial Court allowed the application vide order dated 15.3.2010. Accordingly, the said other person (i.e. accused No.2) is discharged from the case under Section 227 of the Code. Under the said order dated 15.3.2010, the Court also observed that the charge shall be framed against accused No.1, i.e. present petitioner. 10.4 Subsequently, the petitioner filed application (Exh.20) seeking discharge, however, by a reasoned order dated 23.2.2010, the learned trial court rejected the said application. The said order is, inter alia, challenged in this petition. 10.5 In view of the fact that the petitioner has challenged, in paragraph No.10(A), the said order dated 23.3.2010 passed by learned Court below Exhibit-20, it would not be out of place to take into consideration relevant observation by the learned trial Court in the said order. The said observations in the order dated 23.3.2010 read thus: “5. As stated hereinabove, the Court while discharging the accused No.2, had already dealt with the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution and fixed the matter for framing of the Charge against the present accused. Having regard to the papers of Chargesheet on record, it clearly transpires that the accused Shri Goel was allegedly caught red handed offering the bribe of Rs.2,00,000/-to Shri R.K. Das, Police Inspector, CBI, who was conducting the Preliminary Enquiry against the present accused in connection with the holding of the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income in the trap proceedings conducted with the assistance of two independent Panch witnesses. It was sought to be submitted by learned advocate Shri Laliwala that the said Enquiry was pending since 2001 and there was no occasion for the accused to offer the bribe to the Police Inspector Shri R.K. Das in the year 2004, and the entire trap was arranged by Shri R.K. Das only with a view to pose himself as an honest officer. The said submission of Shri Laliwala cannot be accepted at this juncture, as it would be a matter of appreciation of evidence whether the accused was falsely implicated by the complainant Shri Das or not. It was rightly submitted by learned Senior Public Prosecutor Shri Tiwari that the Court is not required to consider either the defence put forth by the accused or the issue of admissibility or non-admissibility of the evidence proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution, at the stage of framing of the Charge. Suffice is to say that having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, the Panchnama and the statements of witnesses, the involvement of the present accused in the alleged crime, has been prima facie established by the prosecution. At this juncture, a very pertinent observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & others v/s Somnath Thapa & others reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 820 relied upon by the prosecution, are required to be reproduced as under: “If there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a Court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame charge against him for committing that offence. In Black's Law Dictionary word 'presume' has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which "A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged." The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” (Emphasis supplied) 10.6 It is relevant to mention that in the said order the Court also recorded submissions made by learned advocate for present petitioner. From the said order it was urged on behalf of present petitioner that:- “3. It has been submitted by leaned advocate Shri Laliwala for the accused that the accused was falsely implicated in the case by the complainant Shri R.K. Das, who was working as the Police Inspector, CBI, and that Shri Das himself had pressurized the accused to give him money for showing favour to the present accused in the preliminary Inquiry being investigated by Shri Das and hence the amount offered by the accused to Shri Das, was an extortion of money and not the bribe. According to Shri Laliwala, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in the case, is inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, and therefore, could not be relied upon, and that the videography and the audiography allegedly recorded during the trap proceedings being manipulated, were also not reliable piece of evidence. Shri Laliwala, relying upon (1992) 4 SC 45, 1951 Cr.LJ. 230 and AIR 1964 SC 358 , submitted that the complainant Shri Das was a Police Officer, and any admission or confession made by the accused before him,was hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1972. he submitted that there being no legally admissible evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the accused deserves to be discharged from the case.” (Emphasis supplied) 10.7 The proceedings in this case have arisen in light of the information/complaint lodged by the informant and the diverse contentions by the petitioner have to be considered in light of the allegations, the reasons recorded in the order and material available on record. 10.8 Actually, while considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into detailed examination of the allegations and the material collected by the investigation officer. 10.9 However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has read both parts of the panchnama and emphasized the allegation that at the relevant time, the recording equipments were stopped/switched off and the panchas could not listen to or see as to what was actually discussed between the informant and the petitioner and therefore, this is a case of no evidence and that, therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed. 10.10 Except the order passed by the learned trial Court in case of the co-accused and the application (Exh.20) made by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code and the order below Exh.20 and the applications Exh.15 and Exh.16 for supplying documents/ transcript and order below the said applications (i.e. the order below Exh.15 and Exh.16) and the copy of Part-I and Part-II of the panchnama, any other material is not placed before this Court. 10.11 Before filing the charge-sheet, the investigation officer would have recorded various statements and would have collected several documents and other material. However, the said material is not before this Court. 10.12 All those aspects, details and material are available before the learned trial Court, but are not on record before this Court and the impugned order is passed by the learned trial court after considering the material on record of the Court. In absence of entire material and without examining the details and material collected by the investigation officer on the basis of which the charge-sheet is filed, it would not be just and proper for this Court to reach and record any conclusion and then on the basis of such conclusion to quash the complaint. 11. At this stage and before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that during the hearing of present petition, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to amend the petition so as to add certain grounds in the petition. Interestingly, along with the said application, which apparently prayed for permission to add certain more grounds (i.e. in addition to the previous amendment whereby the petitioner had already added some grounds), the petitioner also tried to place certain documents on record of the main petition. Interestingly, along with the said application, which apparently prayed for permission to add certain more grounds (i.e. in addition to the previous amendment whereby the petitioner had already added some grounds), the petitioner also tried to place certain documents on record of the main petition. In the said application, initially, below mentioned order was passed on 11.7.2013: “Since learned counsel for the respondent CBI is not present though the petition is overnight part heard and considering the fact that his presence would be very much necessary, hearing is adjourned. S.O. to 16.7.2013.” 11.1 Thereafter, the said application was to be considered after hearing the respondent and that therefore, the application was tagged along with main petition. Any order allowing the petitioner to place on record the additional documents is not passed. 11.2 However, it would not be out of place or unjustified to mention that the documents annexed to the said application relate to the alleged conduct of the informant (but in some altogether different case completely unconnected with and unrelated to the case of the petitioner) during his service. 11.3 The alleged incidents which are reflected from the said document, are not at all connected even remotely with the facts of present case and/or the petitioner. 11.4 However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has tried to refer to the said documents for only one purpose, viz. to assail the moral character of the informant and to contend that the informant does not bear trustworthy character and therefore, the allegations made by the informant while lodging the complaint/FIR should not be believed and accepted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also tried to contend that the informant lodged the complaint/FIR only with a view to improving his image. 11.5 In view of this Court, the said aspects, including the documents annexed to the application are matter of facts and evidence and can be considered and examined wholly by the learned trial Court. 11.6 This Court, therefore, does not want to offer any views or comments with regard to the said documents at this stage. It is, however, clarified that the Court has considered the submissions made in light of the documents. 11.6 This Court, therefore, does not want to offer any views or comments with regard to the said documents at this stage. It is, however, clarified that the Court has considered the submissions made in light of the documents. 11.7 Besides this, malafides or intention of the informant – complainant is not a relevant criterion, more so at this stage, to quash the complaint and/or the impugned order, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage, the question of malafides is not relevant. If the offence is committed – which will have to be established – then whether the complainant harbours animosity or has malafides or is inimical is not significant at this stage, though may be relevant during trial for determining the correctness of allegation. Merely on the ground of alleged flaws in the conduct of the informant, the complaint lodged by him (which is investigated by the respondent CBI and thereafter the charge-sheet is filed) cannot be simply thrown out -quashed. 11.8 Hon'ble Apex court has observed that even malafides in filing the complaint are not relevant consideration to decide an application under Section 482 of the Code. In this context, useful reference may be made to the observation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in case of Dr. Monika Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. And Ors. [ AIR 2008 SC 2781 ], where Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:- “31. In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is made is correct and offence has been committed which will have to be established in a court of law, it is of no significance that the complainant is a person who is inimical or that he is guilty of mala fides. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for quashing the proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) 11.9 It will also be appropriate to take into consideration the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in case between State of Orissa vs. Sarojkumar Sahoo [ (2005) 13 SCC 540 ] wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: “11. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) On this count, useful reference may also be made to the observations in Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [ AIR 2008 SC 787 ] where Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:- “30. A careful reading of the above noted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C.” (Emphasis supplied) In this view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to quash the complaint because the petitioner – accused thinks and presumes that the informant lodged the FIR due to malafides viz. to improve his own image. The said submission is thus, rejected. 12. to improve his own image. The said submission is thus, rejected. 12. The alleged conduct of the informant in altogether and unconnected cases and/or the alleged flaws in conduct of the informant cannot be and are not relevant at the stage of considering and deciding a petition under Section 482 of the Code, seeking quashment of the complaint and merely on such ground, a complaint or the proceedings before the Court cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code more so when the alleged offence concerns allegations about offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or offence against society (i.e. in contradistinction to purely private and personal dispute). What would be relevant and material, in such cases, would be the details and material collected during investigation and the evidence that may be placed on record before the Court. In a petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking quashment of complaint and the proceedings, High Court can not permit itself to enter into and to analyze and assess the value of limited material placed before it at threshold and determine genuineness or otherwise of allegation and cannot proceed to examine about chance or possibility of conviction or otherwise. The Court would hasten to add and clarify that this is not say or mean that the complaint/FIR may be quashed on such ground in the event the alleged offence is purely private and/or personal dispute. At this stage, useful reference may be made to the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in para-22 to 24 in the case between State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri & Ors. [ 1996(1) SCC 542 ]. “22. In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is made is correct and an offence had been committed which will have to be established in a Court of law, it is of no consequence that the complainant was a person who was inimical or that he was guilty of mala fides. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for quashing the prosecution. In the instant case, specific averments of facts have been made whereby it was alleged that the respondent had disproportionately large assets. Mala fide intention of the appellant in launching prosecution against the respondent with a view to punish him cannot be a reason for preventing the Court of competent jurisdiction from examining the evidence which may be led before it, for coming to the conclusion whether an offence had been committed or not. Allegations of mala fides were also made in P.P. Sharma's case, (1992 Supp (l)SCC 222), (supra) against the informer. It was held by this Court that when an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the information are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings. 23. This Court has consistently taken the view that the Court should not, except in extra-ordinary circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. so as to quash the prosecution proceedings, after they have been launched. In K. P. S. Gill's case, (1995 AIR SCW 4100) (supra), it was, inter alia, observed, that–– "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases: that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 24. The position of law, in this regard, has been very succinctly stated in the above case that at the stage of quashing a First Information Report or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuinely of the allegations made therein. This is precisely what has been done by the learned Judge in the present case. The First Information Report having been lodged, the Government of Maharashtra having accorded sanction and thereafter, the charge having been filed, there was absolutely no justification for the High Court to have stopped the normal procedure of the trial being allowed to continue, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind when the First Information Report was prepared and the sanction of the Government obtained. The allegations as made in the First Information Report and the order granting sanction, if true, would clearly establish that the respondent was rightly prosecuted and was guilty of criminal misconduct. The truthfulness of the allegations and the establishment of the guilt can only take place when the trial proceeds without any interruption. There was no justification for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. in quashing the prosecution. For the abovesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel, has then alleged that the informant has been visited with departmental action viz. show cause notice for his alleged acts of omission and/or commission and his conducts during service and that therefore, his version should not be considered and relied upon. 14. The alleged conduct (and that too in some different case completely unconnected with and unrelated to this case and the petitioner) of the informant is not a relevant criterion at this stage i.e. for determining as to whether the complaint deserves to be quashed at the outset. 14.1 Moreover, the petitioner's allegations about informant's conduct in service is a matter of evidence and will have to be established at trial in accordance with evidence, when the informant can rebut and/or explain the allegations, the factual background, etc. 14.1 Moreover, the petitioner's allegations about informant's conduct in service is a matter of evidence and will have to be established at trial in accordance with evidence, when the informant can rebut and/or explain the allegations, the factual background, etc. 14.2 However, such details cannot be made ground for overruling or discarding the information given by the complainant and thereby to throw out the complaint in view of such allegation and submissions by the petitioner. 14.3 The allegations and submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner with reference to the alleged conduct of the informant (in altogether different cases unconnected with the petitioner in present criminal case) and/or alleged acts of omission or commission by the informant are not relevant at this stage and in a petition under Section 482 of the Code and the Court is neither inclined nor convinced to quash the complaint and/or the order below Exh.20 and/or the proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet in present case in view of such allegations and/or on the basis of such submissions. 14.4 The said submission cannot be entertained at this stage and that therefore, the contention is not accepted and the Court is not inclined and not convinced to quash the complaint and criminal case against the petitioner. 15. As mentioned earlier, in recent decision in case of Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor [ (2013) 3 SCC 330 ], Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Court should consider whether the material produced by the accused is such which is of sterling quality and demolishes the allegations of the complainant/prosecution and the documents – material placed forward by the complainant / prosecution. In present case, as observed earlier, except two parts of panchnama and the above-referred orders (the text/transcript of telephone conversation/applications filed by the applicant and the orders – which are not challenged – passed below said applications), any other material, more particularly the details and material collected by the investigation officer on the basis of which the charge-sheet came to be filed, is not placed before, and is not available before, this Court and that, therefore, in absence of such material, it would not be just or proper or permissible for the Court to record any conclusion and to hold that any case of alleged offence is not made out and/or that the complaint and the subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed. 15.1 Besides this, the material placed on record is not such which would convince the Court “beyond any manner or doubt” that any offence is not made out or “prosecution is barred by law” [please see para-30 AIR 2008 SC 787 ]. On the contrary, the material is such which would require that this Court should not, at this stage, examine the probability, reliability, genuineness of allegations and the material which, actually ought to be done at trial and not at this stage. 16. As mentioned earlier, learned Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the details recorded in the panchnama. At this stage, and in the petition under Section 482 of the Code, rowing inquiry as regards the panchnama and the details recorded therein is not permissible and in the fact of the case, it is not necessary, either. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly emphasized certain observations from the panchnama part-I and panchnama part-II. Therefore, it will not be out of place to take note of the observations in the panchnama which learned senior counsel for petitioner read and stressed (from the panchnama). Mr. Thakkar, learned senior counsel, emphasized that in part-I of panchnama dated 26.9.2004 the officer who arranged / conducted the panchnama has recorded factual background in light of which the trap was laid and stated that:- “Sh. Chandola, PI. introduced us to all the above officer and explained that a complaint dated 25.9.2004 has been lodged by Sh. R.K. Das, PI, CBI Gandhinagar, with SP, CBI, Gandhinagar, against one Sh. Umesh Kumar Goel, Jt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nasik, on the allegation that, Sh. Goel against whom he is enquiring one PE 2(A)/2004-GNR, is trying to offer him illegal gratification as a motive for showing favour in the ongoing equiry. Sh. Chandola handed over the complaint dated 25.9.2004 of Sh. R.K. Das, PI. We the panchas readover the complaint and signed on the same in token of having perused it. Sh. Chandola asked Sh. R.K. Das, PI, to narrate the facts regarding the offer of illegal gratification. Sh. Das PI, stated that he had been entrusted an enquiry of PE 2(A)/2004-GNR by SP, CBI, Gandhinagar. During the said enquiry he had examined Sh. Umesh Kumar Goel, Jt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nasik, Maharashtra. Sh. Goel had given him indication by saying “Kuch chahiyega to Boliyega”. R.K. Das, PI, to narrate the facts regarding the offer of illegal gratification. Sh. Das PI, stated that he had been entrusted an enquiry of PE 2(A)/2004-GNR by SP, CBI, Gandhinagar. During the said enquiry he had examined Sh. Umesh Kumar Goel, Jt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nasik, Maharashtra. Sh. Goel had given him indication by saying “Kuch chahiyega to Boliyega”. At that time he took the latter lightly and informed Sh. Goel that the matter would be decided on merits. Therefore he had received several calls from Sh. Goel either at his residence telephone number or at office telephone number. Sh. R.K. Das further told that on 24.9.2004 in the night at about 9.20 p.m. he had again received telephonic call from Sh. Umesh Kumar Goel on his residence telephone no. 23236349. During this telephonic call Sh. Goel tried to discuss the case and informed him that he was reaching Ahmedabad by the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Shatabdi Express on Sunday i.e. on 26.9.2004. Sh. Goel also requested him that they should meet at some hotel in Ahmedabad. He (Sh. Goel) specifically mentioned the name of the Taj Hotel in Ahmedabad. He however refused to meet him at any hotel and told him that if he had to meet him (Sh. R.K. Das) he would have to come to his residence. Sh. Das also told that he had given Sh. Goel his residential address on Sh. Goel's asking.” 16.1 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also read (from the panchnama) that “from the above facts narrated by Sh. Das it was clear that Sh. Umesh Kumar Goel, Joint commissioner, Central Excise, Nashik (Maharashtra) had offered illegal gratification to Sh. R.K. Das, PI, CBI, Gandhinagar, hence it was decided to lay a trap against Sh. Goel..........”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also emphasized the details recorded in panchnama part-II that “..... The conversation was not being heard inside the bedroom since the bedroom door was closed from inside by the CBI team members and the volume of the Television Set was kept on mute position so that no sound is transferred to the drawing room....” Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also emphasized the details recorded in the panchnama that:- “After a brief conversation Sh. Goel was seen standing and moving towards the exit of the drawing rook. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also emphasized the details recorded in the panchnama that:- “After a brief conversation Sh. Goel was seen standing and moving towards the exit of the drawing rook. Simultaniously Sh.R.K. Das was seen giving the pre-decided signal by scratching his head with his right hand. Immediately thereafter Sh. Chandola told Sh. Samir Parikh to immediately pass on the signal to Sh. Devinder Kumar, PI. over his mobile phone and he alongwith Sh. P.B. Patel rushed in the drawing rook. At this juncture Sh. Samir Parikh stopped the recording of the VCR.” 16.2 Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has built entire, or atleast major part of the case on the details recorded in the panchnama to allege and contend that halfway of the meeting between the petitioner and respondent the audio and visual recording was stopped. 16.3 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that even if the petitioner's case and the submission and contention by learned senior counsel on his behalf are considered then also it emerges from the submissions by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that even according to the petitioner:- (a) The petitioner had gone to the residence of the informant. (b) The informant had opened the main gate/door of his house and allowed the petitioner to enter in his house. (c) The petitioner was seen entering the drawing room of the informant's residence. (d) The informant also entered the drawing room. (e) The wife of the informant had entered the drawing room where the informant and the petitioner were sitting. (f) And she served some cold-drinks to the informant and the accused and then she left the room. (g) Petitioner had made a call from his mobile. (h) After sometime one person in dark-blue shirt holding two polythene bags and mobile phone entered in the room and put two polythene bags on the cetre table lying in front of the informant and thereafter the said third person left the room. 16.4 In this background, this Court is of the view that in present case, it is not possible, and it will not be just or legal, to hold, at this stage, that this i.e. a case of no evidence as alleged and claimed by the petitioner and/or the proceedings are abuse of process of law and/or that the impugned order is wrong and erroneous. 16.5 Even from the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it, prima facie, emerges that even according to the said details the petitioner was seen in the residence of the informant (meaning thereby accused's/petitioner's presence in informant's house), the petitioner was seen having some conversation with the informant, while the petitioner and informant were sitting in drawing room of informant's residence and 3rd person carrying two polythene bags had entered in the same drawing room where the petitioner and the informant were sitting and having conversation and subsequently, the trap-team seized two polythene bags from said room in presence of the informant and the petitioner. 16.6 In view of this Court, the said details provide justification (i.e. the said details are sufficient) to lead the Court to the decision to continue/to proceed with the trial and to disallow the application seeking discharge. 16.7 The said circumstances are sufficient to raise suspicion against the petitioner which, in turn, is sufficient to find out that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. 17. In this background when learned trial Court recorded the above quoted observations in the order dated 23.3.2010. With reference to the said observations, it is relevant to recall that the entire material collected by the investigation officer was available before the learned trial court when the court passed the order and made said observations. In light of the observation holding that there is sufficient evidence collected by the investigating officer connecting present accused with alleged crime, the said conclusion cannot be faulted at this stage. 18. In light of the observation holding that there is sufficient evidence collected by the investigating officer connecting present accused with alleged crime, the said conclusion cannot be faulted at this stage. 18. On overall consideration of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and respondent CBI and upon considering the material which is available on record of present petition, this Court is of the view that the presence of the petitioner in the residence of the informant, petitioner's meeting with the informant in drawing room of the informant's residence, the entry of 3rd person – who is allegedly known to the petitioner and was allegedly called there by the petitioner while the informant and the petitioner are sitting in the drawing room of the informant's residence and the fact that the said 3rd person i.e. co-accused entered drawing room of informant's residence during the meeting between the petitioner and the accused person and that he came with two polythene bags and the action of 3rd person of keeping two polythene bags on the table lying in front of the accused and the petitioner sitting in the drawing room of the informant and the case of the prosecution that from one of the two bags a sum of Rs.2 lacs was seized, provide sufficient material:- (i) To hold that there is no error in the order dated 23.3.2010. (ii) To hold that there is no justification to quash the complaint/FIR. (iii) To not accept the petitioner's claim/contention that there is no case against the petitioner. (iv) To not accept the petitioner's claim that allegations against the petitioner are absolutely improper. 18.1 In view of this Court, the facts of the case forbid, and do not permit, this Court to hold at this stage that the complaint deserves to be quashed without allowing further proceedings. 18.2 The above mentioned aspects, emerging from the record, are sufficient to persuade this Court, at this stage, to agree with the learned trial court who has observed in the order that there is prima facie material to allow proceedings to proceed further. 18.3 In view of this Court, the facts of the case and the material on record forbid, and do not permit, this Court to hold at this stage that the complaint deserves to be quashed without allowing further proceedings. 18.3 In view of this Court, the facts of the case and the material on record forbid, and do not permit, this Court to hold at this stage that the complaint deserves to be quashed without allowing further proceedings. 18.4 The above mentioned aspects also suggest and persuade the Court to hold, that this is not fit case where the complaint/charge sheet should be quashed. 19. In this view of the matter and for the foregoing reasons, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and the petition must fail. In the result, the petition is not entertained and is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. In view of disposal of main petition, Criminal Misc. Application Nos.11074 of 2013 and 10922 of 2012 also stand disposed of. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted and prayed that the petitioner wants to challenge this order before Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the interim relief which has been in operation since 2010 may be continued for 5 to 6 weeks.