JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. B.B. Naik appearing with Mr. Dipan Desai for the petitioners and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent - State. Perused the record. 2. The petitioners herein have sought indulgence of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', for short) for quashing of addition of charges under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act', for short) by way of report dated 9.3.2012 in FIR being C.R.No.I-186 of 2011 lodged with Karanj Police Station of Ahmedabad on 17.12.2011. The prayer clause in paragraph 6(A) specifically confirms that the petitioners have prayed to quash and set-aside such report dated 9.3.2012, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, whereby in complaint registered under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 463, 465 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short), the investigating agency has requested the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate to add charges under Section 2(c)(ix), 13(c), 13(d)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the PC Act. Thereby, it is clear and certain and it is confirmed by the petitioners that by way of the present petition, the petitioners have not prayed for quashing of entire FIR, wherein main charges are for the alleged offences under the provisions of IPC. The petitioners have also prayed to quash and set-aside the application dated 17.3.2012 submitted by the investigating agency to the concerned Sessions Court seeking remand of the petitioners to recover the amount of Rs. 31,52,471/- as value of 74.490 Kgs. of silver, alleged to be illegally accepted by petitioner No.1. The factual details for filing the complaint is explained in detail in complaint, police reports and petition, however, the brief facts is only to the effect that petitioner No.1 is Chairman of Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited ('GUJCOMASOL' for short); whereas petitioner No.2 is its Chief Executive Officer. of silver, alleged to be illegally accepted by petitioner No.1. The factual details for filing the complaint is explained in detail in complaint, police reports and petition, however, the brief facts is only to the effect that petitioner No.1 is Chairman of Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited ('GUJCOMASOL' for short); whereas petitioner No.2 is its Chief Executive Officer. The nature of activity of such institution has been disclosed in detail with credential of petitioner No.1 herein that he has worked for several such institutions like - Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Limited (IFFCO), National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED), Krushak Bharti Co-operative Limited (KRIBHCO), so also National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited, National Cooperative Development Corporation, Indian Potash Ltd., National Co-operative Union of India, Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gujarat State Co-operative Union, Gujarat State Consumer Federation Ltd. and Gujarat State Agriculture Marketing Board. Therefore, it is submitted that when petitioner No.1 has worked for all such State level and National level institutions almost for three decades, and that he is a political figure, actively involved in co-operative movement, which resulted into enmity amongst rivals. The factual details of GUJCOMASOL and its activity are not of much material for our consideration in the present petition. However, it is undisputed fact that in December, 2010, on occasion of Golden Jubilee celebration of GUJCOMASOL, Managing Committee of the Staff Association had decided to gift silver of equal weight of petitioner No.1 for his contribution and therefore, they have requested the petitioner No.1 to grant one salary as festival advance to staff members on occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations so as to enable the staff to celebrate the completion of 50 years. Therefore, when Managing Committee of the Staff Association has approved the necessary expenses to be recovered from salary of staff members, the administration of GUJCOMASOL has managed accordingly, and by collecting funds in the name of GUJCOMASOL Staff Association Golden Jubilee Committee through cheque, the Committee has managed to purchase the silver equal of weight of petitioner No.1 out of the amount so collected from the salary of the members of the Association, who are employees' of GUJCOMASOL and function was held on 5.2.2011 in presence of her Excellency Governor of Gujarat and several Ministers of State and Central Government, wherein Staff Association had gifted silver to petitioner No.1 equal of his weight and also donated blood to a reputed Blood Bank. It is also contended that for collecting funds for the celebration, the staff has unanimously agreed to collect funds from their salary and to avoid any financial difficulty, only advance salary was paid to them and thereby, the amount used for which complaint is filed, was not recovered from anyone as gratification, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show any exercise of official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any Local Authority, Corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2 or Section 7 or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise. It is also equally clear that not a single rupee has been utilised from the public fund for felicitating the petitioner No.1 as aforesaid. The festival advance given to the employees' cannot be considered as gratification in any manner, when employees' have unanimously agreed to collect the funds to felicitate the petitioner No.1. In any case, petitioner No.1 has not to do or forbear to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour to any person in any manner whatsoever. 3. However, a complaint was filed by District Registrar of the Co-operative Societies of the State that petitioners have committed offence under IPC as per sections referred herein above. In any case, petitioner No.1 has not to do or forbear to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour to any person in any manner whatsoever. 3. However, a complaint was filed by District Registrar of the Co-operative Societies of the State that petitioners have committed offence under IPC as per sections referred herein above. However, in such complaint when petitioner No.1 has got anticipatory bail, the investigating agency has filed impugned report to add Sections under the PC Act and sought remand of petitioner No.1 under the pretext of recovering the amount equal to silver, which was used to felicitate the petitioner No.1. 4. Therefore, petitioners have challenged such act of the respondents. 5. At the time of issuing notice and staying the operation of the impugned order, as back as on 26.3.2012, the co-ordinate Bench of this court has recorded the contention of the petitioners that they are not public servants as defined under the provision of Section 2(c) (ix) of the PC Act and therefore, court has permitted the investigating officer to continue the investigation, but with a direction not to take any coercive action against the petitioner No.1 till further orders. Such interim relief is operational till date, but unfortunately, the investigating agency has failed to complete the investigation so far as allegations in the FIR so also in impugned order are concerned and thereby, matter is pending for last six years at the same stage without any progress, but at the same time, without any substantial reason for the respondent - State to remain inactive for all these six years and in not collecting relevant evidence to confirm that whether petitioners have committed any offence or not so as to proceed further by filing appropriate report before the concerned court. Therefore, when this court has not stayed the investigation and simply directed the investigating agency not to take coercive steps against the petitioners, like arrest or remand, the respondents have misinterpreted the order as submitted by learned APP that because of pendency of this petition, the investigating agency has not proceeded further. This is nothing, but selectiveness by a State investigating agency, since the court's order is very much clear that it will be open for the I.O. to continue the investigation, but no coercive action be taken against the petitioners till further order. 6. This is nothing, but selectiveness by a State investigating agency, since the court's order is very much clear that it will be open for the I.O. to continue the investigation, but no coercive action be taken against the petitioners till further order. 6. The record further shows that immediately after service of notice, the petitioner No.1 has come forward to deposit the amount of Rs. 32 Lakhs with GUJCOMASOL Staff Association, being value of the silver by which he was felicitated. Therefore, coordinate Bench on dated 10.4.2012 has observed and recorded as under:- "Mr. B.B.Naik, learned Senior Advocate, submit that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitioners would like to pay Rs. 32 lakhs to GUJCOMOSOL Staff Association. However, due to the pendency of the petition and other litigations arising out of the impugned FIR, GUJCOMOSOL Staff Association has not accepted the cheque of Rs. 32 lakhs tried to be deposited by the petitioners. In view of the above, it will be open for the GUJCOMOSOL Staff Association to accept the cheque of Rs. 32 lakhs to be presented by the petitioners subject to the outcome of the petition and other litigations. Learned APP seeks time to answer the contention of law raised by the petitioners, which was recorded in the order dated 26.03.2012. Direction issued in order dated 26.03.2012 to the Investigating Officer will continue till further order. Post the matter on 9th May, 2012." 7. It seems that, thereafter, matter has remained unheard for pretty long time. However, by order dated 8.7.2016, this court has called upon the petitioners to disclose the compliance of order dated 10.4.2012 so also called upon the respondents to call for the present status of the complaint from the I.O., more particularly to confirm that whether investigation is over or not and outcome of such investigation. In compliance of such order, petitioners have filed an affidavit on 13.7.2016, disclosing the compliance of order dated 10.4.2014 annexing the copy of receipt dated 10.4.2012 issued by GUJCOMASOL Staff Association that they have received an amount of Rs. 32 Lakhs by cheque No.647685 dated 9.4.2012. In compliance of such order, petitioners have filed an affidavit on 13.7.2016, disclosing the compliance of order dated 10.4.2014 annexing the copy of receipt dated 10.4.2012 issued by GUJCOMASOL Staff Association that they have received an amount of Rs. 32 Lakhs by cheque No.647685 dated 9.4.2012. Thus, practically, on 10.4.2012 itself, the petitioner No.1 has even before service of notice upon respondents, voluntarily came forward to return the valuable gift received by him as his felicitation to the Association, which has gifted it, and amount of such gift was received back by such Association. 8. However, since the petitioners have not challenged the entire FIR, I do not see it proper to discuss and come to any conclusion with reference to activities either by the Staff Association or by the petitioners, prior to decision by the Association to celebrate the Golden Jubilee and to felicitate the petitioner No.1 with silver equal of his weight and actual celebration and felicitation of petitioner No.1, wherein such valuable gift was honoured to him and accepted by him. 9. The only issue remains for consideration at this stage is to the effect that whether additional charges under the PC Act can be added as per the impugned report dated 9.3.2012 or whether it would be necessary for the investigating agency to seek remand of the petitioner No.1 for recovering the gift or its value. 10. So far as impugned remand application dated 17.3.2012 at Annexure-B is concerned, the factual details disclosed herein above makes it clear that the petitioner No.1 has voluntarily refunded the amount of valuable gift by cheque to the Association, which has gifted it to him and therefore, there is no question of recovering such amount or gift as muddamal and therefore, to that extent, now, irrespective of addition of alleged offence under PC Act, there is no substance in seeking remand of petitioner No.1 as per the application dated 17.3.2012 (Annexure-B) and therefore, such application stands rejected. 11. 11. So far as report dated 9.3.2012 is concerned, the fact remains that irrespective of considering that whether petitioners are public servants or not, though I am of the opinion that petitioners, even if they are public servants for some activity, with reference to the present set of allegations, they cannot be treated as public servants, keeping such issue pending, considering pendency of similar issue in other matters, though I may not determine that whether petitioners are public servants or not, the factual details narrated herein above make it clear that there is no reason or substance for the respondents to add Sections of PC Act in the pending investigation as per impugned report dated 9.3.2012. For the purpose, reference of Sections referred in such report are material. 12. So far as Section 2(c) of the PC Act is concerned, as aforesaid, I do not want to enter into such determination at this stage. However, let it be made clear that so far as factual details are concerned, the activity of the petitioners would not in any manner make them public servants so far as allegations in impugned report and FIR are concerned. 13. So far as Section 9 of the PC Act is concerned, it becomes clear that petitioners have not accepted for themselves or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or dis-favour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any Local Authority, Corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2. 14. So far as Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act is concerned, there is no evidence or allegation that petitioner No.1 has committed any act of criminal misconduct by dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or converting any property entrusted to him under his control as a public servant for his own use or allows any person to do so. 15. 14. So far as Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act is concerned, there is no evidence or allegation that petitioner No.1 has committed any act of criminal misconduct by dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or converting any property entrusted to him under his control as a public servant for his own use or allows any person to do so. 15. So far as Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the PC Act are concerned, the factual details disclosed herein above nowhere confirms that petitioner No.1 has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means without any public interest or he has abused his position for the same. 16. Thereby, when there is no evidence either to confirm or to prove any of the ingredients of any of the sections under reference, there is no reason to add such provisions in pending investigation before completing investigation at initial stage, only with a view to seek remand of the petitioners. It seems that entire episode has arisen out of political rivalry. 17. In any case, now, when the petitioners have not challenged the original complaint in toto and when petitioner No.1 has voluntarily returned the amount of the value of the gifted silver to him to the Association, who has felicitated him with such gift and thereby, when there is clarity in complaint itself that amount for such gift was not used from the public fund, but used from the salary of the Staff Association, only because such salary was paid in advance, and that too because of the unanimous resolution by the Staff Association and more particularly, even after accepting such gift though it was returned back, the acceptance of the gift was not for favourment or dis-favourment and not for doing or forbearing any official duty of the petitioners. Such act of accepting valuable gift cannot be termed as corruption so as to invite the charges under PC Act, only because such gift is valuable gift, when it is only with a view to felicitate the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 has not to do any illegal act against such gift, which falls within the purview of any of above-referred sections of PC Act. 18. I have also perused the entire record and affidavit-in-reply as well as additional affidavit by petitioners. 18. I have also perused the entire record and affidavit-in-reply as well as additional affidavit by petitioners. As aforesaid, at this stage, though I believe that the petitioners are not public servants so far as issues raised in the complaint and this petition is concerned, since respondents have come forward with a case that petitioners are public servants and requested to keep such issue open because such issue is pending before some other courts, though I am not deciding the activities of the petitioners either as public servants or otherwise, the discussion herein above specifically makes it clear that there is no substance in the impugned order to add charges under PC Act and therefore, I do not hesitate to allow this petition as prayed for. 19. However, it is made clear that when the investigating agency has not completed the investigation, the investigating agency is not in a position to prove the charges as aforesaid and therefore, only at the trial and thereby, not at the time of charge-sheet, if at all there is evidence, confirming that there is evidence to prove the charges under PC Act, the concerned trial Court is certainly empowered by statute to add appropriate charges and therefore, practically, it is necessary for the investigating agency to first gather the evidence before alleging the charges under particular section or statute before filing the charge-sheet only with a view to seek custody of any person. 20. In view of above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed as prayed for, whereby, the impugned order dated 9.3.2012 seeking addition of charges under PC Act and application dated 17.3.2012 seeking remand of the petitioners, both by the investigating agency/respondent, are hereby quashed and set-aside and is hereby rejected. 21. Direct service is permitted.