JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Dilip Kumar assisted by Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer of quashing the impugned charge-sheet No. 6 of 2017 dated 20.12.2017 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 42 of 2017 (State v. Neeraj Kumar Singh) pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Meerut, under Section 7/13 (1) D read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Mant, District-Mathura and the order taking cognizance on the said charge-sheet dated 22.12.2017. 3. The facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. being Crime No. 318 of 2017, under Section 7/13 (1) D read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred in short as ‘PC Act’) on 30.10.2017 at P.S. Mant, District Mathura against the applicant stating therein that one complaint was moved by Virendra Singh son of Ramdayal, village Udiyagarhi, P.S. Nauhjhil, District Mathura, addressed to In-charge Anti-Corruption Organization, Agra stating that his wife Smt Mithlesh was working as Assistant at Aangan Bari Center, Primary School Gadhi Kolahar, Block Naujheel, Mathura, inspection of which was made by Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Sri Neeraj Kumar Singh (applicant) on 11.10.2017 and he found various irregularities, pursuant to which a notice was issued to her on 11.10.2017, which was replied by her on 16.10.2017 for disposing of the said matter. He (applicant) demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for deciding the said matter and it was decided that the said amount of bribe would be given to him at an appointed place. But the complainant, instead of given bribe, wanted to get the petitioner apprehended receiving the bribe. The said complaint was got inquired into confidentially by Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh and finding substance therein the Opposite Party No. 2 sent a report on 27.10.2017 to S.P., Anti-Corruption Organization, Lucknow to constitute a trap team. After consultation, under the leader-ship of the Opposite Party No. 2, a trap team was constituted comprising a H.C.P. Mohd. Yousuf Shaikh, Bahadur Singh, lady Constable Sandhya Nigam and Constable (driver) Raghvendra Singh. Yusuf Shaikh and finding substance therein the Opposite Party No. 2 sent a report on 27.10.2017 to S.P., Anti-Corruption Organization, Lucknow to constitute a trap team. After consultation, under the leader-ship of the Opposite Party No. 2, a trap team was constituted comprising a H.C.P. Mohd. Yousuf Shaikh, Bahadur Singh, lady Constable Sandhya Nigam and Constable (driver) Raghvendra Singh. The said trap team was instructed by the Opposite Party No. 2 to reach Mathura on 30.11.2017 and the complainant was instructed to meet the trap team at Raya-Mant road out side the gate of Dalchand Singh Mahavidyala. On 30.10.2017, the trap team reached office of D.M.’s Mathura in Jeap number UP 32 AG 1877 at 8:00 a.m., there Mohd. Israr meet them. On the application moved by Opposite Party No. 2 to D.M. Mathura requesting for two independence witnesses to be provided, Sri Dinesh Kumar Sexana JA II and Sarad Sharma TAC II of Collectorate, Mathura were nominated, with whom the trap team reached Dalchandra Singh Mahavidyala and met the complainant there. Thereafter, they reached in the meeting hall of Mahavidyala, where, the complainant reiterated/verified the allegations made in his application in front of the members of the trap team and witnesses and five note of Rs. 2000/- denomination bearing numbers mentioned in the F.I.R. which amounted to Rs. 10,000/-, after being treated, were given to the complainant with a direction that those currency notes would be given by the complainant to the accused-applicant on asking for bribe. A memo, in this regard, was prepared by the O.P. No. 2, which was signed by the witnesses and the members of the trap team and thereafter, in accordance with the agreed plan, the complainant as well as all the members of the trap team reached the said Mahavidyala at 1:50 hours, where two teams were constituted of the members of the trap team. In the first team, the O.P. No. 2 himself, In-charge inspector, Head Constable Bahadur Singh and independent witness Sarad Sharma and in the other team SIM Mohd. Israr, H.C.P. Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh were included. Complainant was instructed to go alongwith Smt Sandhya Nigam and independent witness Dinesh Kumar Singh to the office. Both the sub-trap teams were deployed outside the gate of CDPO office. Israr, H.C.P. Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh were included. Complainant was instructed to go alongwith Smt Sandhya Nigam and independent witness Dinesh Kumar Singh to the office. Both the sub-trap teams were deployed outside the gate of CDPO office. The complainant and the independent witnesses alongwith lady constable reached the office of CDPO where the complainant requested the CDPO to decide the reply, which was sent in response to the explanation of his wife. At this CDPO/applicant-accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- for its early disposal. Pursuant to that the complainant took out the said money and after having counted it, handed it over to the applicant, who after receiving the same started counting it, which was seen by the members of the trap team. And having been convinced of the said amount having been taken by the applicant as bribe, he was arrested at 2:20 pm and from his personal search 5 currency notes were recovered amounting Rs. 10,000/-. 4. After the investigation in this case, the investigating agency has submitted the charge-sheet on 20.12.2017 and cognizance has been taken on 22.12.2017 by Special Judge Anti Corruption, Meerut, under the aforementioned sections. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant after having completed his academic course, ‘Master of Arts’ (M.A.) in Sociology in year 2004, successfully qualified for the selection of Child Development Project Officer and after having completed his training, he has been posted in District Pratapgarh on 29.4.2011 on the Post of Child Development Project Officer, Block Lalgang, District Pratapgarh. In the year 2014, he was transferred from Pratapgarh to Mathura and was shifted to Block Mant on 15.5.2017 where he was discharging his duties honestly without indulging in any irregularities. During the course of his duty, he was informed by his sub-ordinate Officer Smt Anita Devi, pertaining to her inspection, wherein, Aangan Bari Centre of Primary School Gadhi Kolahar was found closed on 14.9.2017 and 4.10.2017, when the inspection was made. Smt. Anita Devi, who is Sector Supervisor, had given notice for the said lapse to Aangan Bari worker/helper Smt. Mithilesh Devi who used to look after the said centre. On receiving the said report, the applicant had inspected the said centre on 11.10.2017 at 11:10 a.m. and the same was again found closed. At that time of inspection Smt. Anita Devi, the Sector Supervisor, was also accompanying the applicant. On receiving the said report, the applicant had inspected the said centre on 11.10.2017 at 11:10 a.m. and the same was again found closed. At that time of inspection Smt. Anita Devi, the Sector Supervisor, was also accompanying the applicant. The inspection report was prepared by the applicant and a notice was issued to Smt. Mithilesh Devi, seeking her explanation about the said center being found closed on 11.10.2017 at 11:10 a.m.. The said notice of explanation was also sought from Smt. Anita Devi, the Sector Supervisor, as to how many times in the last six months, the inspection of the said center was made and what action was taken against the Aangan Bari worker/helper of the said center. The said notice dated 11.10.2017 was duly received by Sri Virendra Singh, husband of Smt. Mithilesh Devi. However, within the stipulated period of three days, no explanation/reply was received from her side. The Sector Supervisor, Smt Anita Devi, also did not submit her explanation to the said notice. Further it is mentioned that the aforesaid notice dated 11.10.2017 was also sent to the District Programme Officer, Mathura, on the same day for an information and necessary action. Since no explanation was received both from Smt. Mithilesh Devi and Smt. Anita Devi, then on 27.10.2017, on the day of ‘Wajan Divas’, the applicant again visited the said Aangan Bari Centre for inspection and no activity relating to programme of ‘Wajan Divas’ was found at the centre. For the said lapse, a query was made again for non-operating of the said programme but Smt. Mithilesh Devi did not respond. Thus the applicant having no option, again prepared a notice on the same day to be served on Smt. Mithilesh Devi and in spite of specific instruction for receiving the said notice, Smt. Mithilesh Devi did not turn up. It is further mentioned that on 27.10.2017, the applicant received a threat call on his mobile phone by Virendra Singh, husband of Smt. Mithilesh Devi, for dire consequences, if any action was taken against Smt. Mithilesh Devi. The applicant after receiving the said threat call, communicated the said episode to his superior officer, District Programme Officer, highlighting the said episode in writing. Virendra Singh visited applicant’s office on 30.10.2017 and requested him to give notice dated 27.10.2017, whereon the applicant himself passed on a copy of the notice which was duly received by Virendra Singh. The applicant after receiving the said threat call, communicated the said episode to his superior officer, District Programme Officer, highlighting the said episode in writing. Virendra Singh visited applicant’s office on 30.10.2017 and requested him to give notice dated 27.10.2017, whereon the applicant himself passed on a copy of the notice which was duly received by Virendra Singh. Thereafter, Virendra Singh reached at the table of applicant and started manhandling him by raising his voice, alleging that the applicant asked for the illegal gratification from Virendra Singh. The applicant was forcibly dragged by those persons alongwith Virendra Singh outside the office, where the police reached and forcibly brought applicant at police station Mant. Then he came to know that some complaint had been made against him for demanding Rs. 10,000/- as bribe by Virendra Singh, husband of Smt Mithilesh Devi. He was also threatened for being Challaned under the Provisions of Corruption Act. The said episode happened in presence of the officers of the Anti Corruption Organization and office bearers of Non-Government Organizations commonly known as U.T.A. (United Teachers Association). The applicant recognized some of the office bearers of the said N.G.O./U.T.A., amongst them being, Pushpendra Singh Chaudhari, Alok Upadhyay, Vegraj Singh, Vishal Pachauri and Vipin Parashar. Opposite Party No. 2, Bhaiya Lal, was also present alongwith Inspector Rampal Singh. There was demand of huge amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs for hushing-up the said matter, however, the same was flatly refused by the applicant. Then after waiting for about two hours, under coercion, applicant’s signature was obtained on some blank papers and after putting some powder substance on his hand, the liquid sample (pink coloured) was obtained by Anti-corruption Bureau personnels with the help of police personnel. Finally, the applicant was brought to Meerut, where he was produced before the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption who remanded him to judicial custody, vide order dated 31.10.2017. Further it is mentioned that the episode of his manhandling by the office bearers of U.T.A. and the employees of Anti-Corruption Bureau was recorded in live video and the same was put on social site (facebook and whatsapp) and was also shown on some channels of electronic media. Some of the media-men had taken interview of the complainant Virendra Singh, who told them that the applicant had demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/-, for which he had made a complaint to Anti-corruption Organization. Some of the media-men had taken interview of the complainant Virendra Singh, who told them that the applicant had demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/-, for which he had made a complaint to Anti-corruption Organization. Further it is mentioned that during investigation, the applicant had never been interrogated by the Investigating Officer, who has prepared the charge-sheet on 20.12.2017, which was submitted before Court on 22.12.2017, whereon the cognizance had been taken the same day after registering the case. The bail application was moved by the applicant, which was allowed vide order dated 11.4.2018 and he was released from jail on 18.4.2018. Due to his detention in prison, he was suspended by the Department vide order dated 1.11.2017 and was handed over charge-sheet seeking the explanation about the charges incorporated in the charge-sheet, regarding which detailed explanation had been furnished by him, after consideration of which his suspension order had been revoked and he had been reinstated in service vide order dated 4.7.2018 and had been posted in District Lalitpur. 6. Further it is mentioned that the applicant is a Class-II, Gazetted Officer, whose status is clearly demonstrated in the Regulation known as Uttar Pradesh Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar (Class-’A’ and ‘B’) Seva Niyamavali. The said Regulation had been formed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the same is published through Notification dated 4.7.1996. Recently, the said Regulation had been amended vide Notification dated 7.11.2017. In both the Notification, the status of the applicant, being Child Development Project Officer, is shown as Class-II Gazetted Officer. After his release from jail, he searched on the official website about the jurisdiction, powers and authority of Anti-Corruption Organization. It transpired that the said Organization was formally created vide U.P. Government Order dated April 18, 1977. The said Organization was established to combat corruption etc., in police department and non-gazetted ranks officers of other Government departments. Clause II of the said Government Order of 1977, clearly contemplates that Anti-corruption Organization has its jurisdiction over Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Prosecuting Officer and Assistant Prosecuting Officer, being non-gazetted posts. Besides the police officers, the said organization is further empowered for make inquiry related to officers of other State Government Departments of the ‘same category’ as defined in the department of police and Prosecuting Officer. Besides the police officers, the said organization is further empowered for make inquiry related to officers of other State Government Departments of the ‘same category’ as defined in the department of police and Prosecuting Officer. Further it is mentioned that the younger brother of the applicant, obtained an information under ‘Right to Information’ Act, from District Programme Officer, Mathura, to the effect whether any information was sought by the Unit of Anti-corruption Organization, Agra, regarding the status of Child Development Project Officer being gazetted or non-gazetted, in reply to which, it was mentioned that Child Development Project Officer is categorized as Gazetted Class-II officer, by highlighting the relevant G.O. of 1980 and Regulation of 1996. Further it is mentioned that the applicant thoroughly examined the police report (charge-sheet) but the communication between the Investigating Officer Rampal Singh, through his letter dated 16.11.2017 and its reply given by Chief Development Officer, with the letter of District Programme Officer dated 16.11.2017, were not found in the said police report, as its part. It appears that on getting clarification about the status of the applicant being Class-II, Gazetted Officer, the Investigating Officer, surreptitiously obtained a letter from S.P., Anti-corruption Bureau, U.P., Lucknow, dated 5.12.2017 in which it is informed that the status of Child Development Officer, on the basis of their pay scale, falls within the category of Class-III, Non-gazetted. Further it is mentioned that it appears that Investigating Officer Rampal Singh had referred to the letter No. 7013 dated 5.12.2017 of Director but deliberately concealed the G.O. dated 14.5.2012 and substituted it by D.O. Letter No. 2043 dated 27.5.2003. It is strange as to from where the said D.O. Letter No. 2043 dated 27.5.2003, copy of which is made a part of charge-sheet had been found by the Investigating Officer, though the same is neither the part of the letter of Director, Child Development Services and Nutrition nor the same is part of letter of Superintendent of Police, which were addressed to the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to point out here that the I.O. Rampal Singh, deliberately concealed the G.O. dated 14.5.2012 and has referred to one D.O. Letter dated 27.5.2003 in the case diary, copy of which was also made part of case diary on the basis of which, he has been shown to have arrived on the conclusion that the applicant’s post fell within the category of Class-III employee—Non-gazetted, just to make Anti-corruption Organization competent to take cognizance of the complaint made by Virendra Singh. Therefore, the so called trap was shown to be made through first informant Bhaiya Lal, Inspector of Anti-corruption Organization, the First Information Report of the present case had been got registered and Rampal Singh, another Inspector of Anti-corruption Organization had taken the process of investigation in his hand, who has submitted the charge-sheet. Therefore, it is apparent that the applicant, who was holding the post of Child Development Project Officer, was a Class-II Gazetted rank officer regarding whom the Anti-corruption Organization had no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint and make investigation and the entire proceedings are a nullity. 7. Further it is mentioned that the applicant had been illegally arrested by showing false exercise of trap which was said to be organised and shown to be made on the basis of complaint filed by Virendra Singh, husband of Smt Mithlesh Devi, who happens to be Aangan Bari worker. Virendra Singh, himself is an employee of Department of Basic Shiksha and is discharging his duties on contractual basis as Shiksha Mitra in the same village and school, where Aangan Bari Center is located. The whole exercise at the instance of Virendra Singh is malicious. It is further mentioned that in the charge-sheet submitted by the Inspector of Anti Corruption Organization, no pre-trap memo appears to have been prepared. In absence of that, no offence under Section 7/13 of the PC Act is made out. Further, the Investigating Officer has failed to examine any independent witness in respect of the allegations of demand of bribe and the transaction of Rs. 10,000/-. All the witnesses are members of Anti-corruption Organization and it is surprising that at the time of laying the trap, Investigating Officer Rampal Singh, himself was present, though, his name had not been shown in the trap team. 10,000/-. All the witnesses are members of Anti-corruption Organization and it is surprising that at the time of laying the trap, Investigating Officer Rampal Singh, himself was present, though, his name had not been shown in the trap team. Further it is mentioned that Inspector Rampal Singh, was not included in the trap team, which is clear from the trap memo, itself, but he was physically present at the time of laying the trap and his presence is demonstrated from the photographs which was taken by number of persons at the time of episode of manhandling with the applicant. Therefore, in this backdrop, the entire process of investigation made by Rampal Singh, is rendered illegal and consequently the charge-sheet needs to be quashed. For ready reference a number of photographs of the said episode, showing his presence and presence of various leaders at police station Mant, which were circulated through social media, have also been filed with the affidavit. Further, it is mentioned that Non-Government Organization namely U.T.A. (United Teachers Association) is known to blackmail through its employees and they used to indulge in fabricated and concocted episodes. Their modus operandi is to extract money under coercion. They were involved in illegal activities of fabricating false documents such as educational mark-sheet, certificate etc. and on receiving various complaints against the said association, the S.T.F. had raided their office and a large number of their employees had been arrested. Two employees of the said organization namely, Alok Upadhyay and Pushpendra Chaudhari had physically manhandled the applicant on 30.10.2017. This criminal prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, which would result in irreparable loss to the applicant, hence the charge-sheet alongwith criminal proceedings need to be quashed. 8. Further it is mentioned that the controversy with respect to the status of post of applicant being a gazetted officer of Class-II rank had been set at rest by G.O. Dated 26.4.2013 annexed as annexure-1 to supplementary-affidavit dated 20.8.2018. It is further stated that a similar controversy had arisen before Lucknow Bench of this Court for determining the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to officer of rank of Child Development Project Officer. It is further stated that a similar controversy had arisen before Lucknow Bench of this Court for determining the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to officer of rank of Child Development Project Officer. This Court vide order dated 17.2.2017 in Service Writ No. 28772 of 2016 was pleased to adjudicate and decide the status of the officer as Class-II Gazetted Officer, a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 2. to the supplementary-affidavit dated 20.8.2018. Further it is mentioned that the Director of the Department of Child Development Services and Nutrition in letter dated 5.12.2017 misinterpreted the Government decision circulated through G.O. dated 14.5.2012 and formed a view on the basis of the pay scale grade that the post of Child Development Officer falls in the category of Group ‘C’ (Non-gazetted). The Government Order dated 14.5.2012 categorically clarified that in case of such services for which special category is made or the Government through a general or special order categorized the status of such services, then the general classification on the basis of pay scale would not be applicable to those services/officers, copy of the said G.O. dated 14.5.2012 has been annexed at page 140 of the main petition. Further it is mentioned that the Director of Department of Child Development Services and Nutrition passed an order according sanction for the prosecution of the appellant vide order dated 19.12.2017, which is annexed as annexure-3 to the supplementary-affidavit. The very root of the power and competency of trap proceedings, registration of F.I.R., process of investigation and submission of charge-sheet by obtaining sanction for prosecution is rendered illegal. Further, it is mentioned that the entire proceedings is a mala fide exercise at the instance of Vijendra Kumar (complainant) against whose wife the disciplinary action, by issuing show-cause notice seeking her explanation, had been initiated by the applicant. Vigilance Establishment is competent to lay the trap, register the F.I.R. based of the trap proceedings, investigate on the basis of such F.I.R. and file charge-sheet. Vigilance Establishment is competent to lay the trap, register the F.I.R. based of the trap proceedings, investigate on the basis of such F.I.R. and file charge-sheet. The said department of vigilance establishment constituted under U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, initially had the power to investigate number of offences of I.P.C. and under the Prevention of Corruption Act pertaining to police officers and officers of other departments but after formation of Anti-corruption Organization w.e.f. 18.4.1977, the jurisdiction over the non-gazetted officers of police department and other departments had been given to the said Anti-corruption Organization, a copy of the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965 alongwith notification dated 12.2.1965 has been annexed as Annexure IV to the supplementary-affidavit. Further, it is mentioned that in the said video-graphy at the place of occurrence physical presence of Rampal Singh, Inspector is distinctly shown at the time of trap being laid by the members of the trap team. One of the members of the trap team had been shown demonstrating five notes of 2000/- each in his hand, which were subsequently alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Further, it is mentioned that the so called recovery of Rs. 10,000/- had been shown at the time of its being handed over to applicant by Virendra Singh, which were neither sealed at the spot nor any memo was prepared at the spot in respect of their recovery. The episode of manhandling the applicant by members of U.T.A. and forcibly bringing the applicant by the members of the trap team and Rampal Singh, Inspector, is apparent. Rampal Singh, Inspector was deputed Investigating Officer and he without making independent enquiry about the factum of so called recovery of Rs. 10,000/-, completed the investigation by submitting the impugned charge-sheet. Once Rampal Singh, himself was physically present at the spot with the members of the trap team, then the process of investigation by such inspector could not be treated to be a fair investigation. The possibility of bias on the part of Investigating Officer Rampal Singh could not be excluded. Therefore, as per settled proposition of law laid down in Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011, Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab decided on 16.8.2018, the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, the principle of fair play has been violated. 9. The possibility of bias on the part of Investigating Officer Rampal Singh could not be excluded. Therefore, as per settled proposition of law laid down in Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011, Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab decided on 16.8.2018, the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, the principle of fair play has been violated. 9. Learned A.G.A. has filed a counter-affidavit of the Investigating Officer Rampal Singh wherein it is stated that after the complaint by Virendra Singh was received on 25.10.2017 at Anti-corruption Organization, Agra, orders for a confidential enquiry were issued, to test the authenticity of the contents of the complaint. This included discreet enquiries about the alleged delinquent employee. A report was then sent to Lucknow, to S.P., Anti-corruption Organization, Lucknow, and orders were received to constitute a trap team which included the names of the members who were to comprise the said trap team. On 27.10.2017, the report was sent and the orders to prepare the trap team were received by FAX. Thereafter, District Magistrate was requested to recommend the names of two independent witnesses (Government servants) to be present at the time of execution of proceedings to ensure fair play. Thereafter, following the procedure like treating the currency notes with chemical powder, the trap was executed. On 30.10.2017, there was a strike and Dharna by Aangan Bari workers and a large crowd had collected when they heard that the applicant had been arrested. The statement of the applicant was recorded by the initial I.O. Bhaiya Lal, which is reflected in the last part of first parcha of the case diary. The entire investigation had been done impartially and fairly and thereafter charge-sheet had been submitted. Further it is mentioned that the applicant is a non-gazetted officer, as has been clarified by the reply to the query by S.P., Anti-corruption Bureau, Lucknow, Bal Vikas Pushtahar, the appointing authority of the applicant. The G.O. Dated 27.5.2003 was attached to the letter of the Director of Bal Vikash Pushtahar, hence the allegation against the Investigating Officer are baseless. The entire trap proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is further mentioned that pre-trap memo is available in the ‘fard pradarsh’ of the case diary, (which is available in its entirety for kind perusal of the Court). The entire trap proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is further mentioned that pre-trap memo is available in the ‘fard pradarsh’ of the case diary, (which is available in its entirety for kind perusal of the Court). Further it is mentioned that Investigating Officer Rampal Singh was appointed Investigating Officer, who could be seen in the video footage. However, his presence was in no official capacity and therefore his signature was not appended anywhere at any point of time. The procedure prior to trap is to ensure that every precaution to prevent unnecessary harassment of the Government servant is taken. Since there were only 10 offices of Anti-corruption Organization in entire U.P. only 7 districts come under the applicant’s zonal/range office at Agra. The usual practice was that the trap is executed after entire pre-trap precautions have been taken, an officer accompanies the team who could make the site plan and do spot inspection after registration of F.I.R.. In the present case, he (deponent) was not initial Investigating Officer, rather he was handed over the investigation on 31.10.2017 by orders of S.P., Anti-corruption while investigation was started by another Investigating Officer namely, Inspector Bhaiya Lal. Further it is mentioned that the appointing authority has granted sanction of prosecution after due application of mind which has been attached, therefore, the application moved by the accused applicant is decided on merits and deserves to be dismissed. The accused is guilty of misuse of his post due to his indulgence in heinous act of corruption. He has further mentioned that only first parcha was prepared by the first I.O. and thereafter the remaining parcha were prepared by him recording statement of 12 witnesses and absolute fairness was maintained in carrying out investigation. 10. First of all we would like to take up the main argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being a Gazetted Class-II officer, the Anti-Corruption Organisation was not competent to entertain any complaint against him nor the said organisation could lay any trap or register any First Information Report against him and that it was only the domain of Vigilance Department (Anti-Corruption). Further it was argued that Anti-Corruption Organisation had wrongly treated the applicant to be a non-gazetted officer on the basis of his pay scale. Further it was argued that Anti-Corruption Organisation had wrongly treated the applicant to be a non-gazetted officer on the basis of his pay scale. The said argument has been repelled by the respondents on the ground that the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar vide letter dated 5.12.2017 (annexure CA-6) had responded to the Superintendent Police, Anti-Corruption Organisation, Lucknow that the post of Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari was a post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 9300 - 34,800, grade pay 4200, hence in accordance with Government Notification dated 14.5.2012 the said post fell in the category of (Group-C) (non-gazetted) post, pursuant to which prosecution sanction was obtained from the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar vide his order dated 19.12.2017 (annexure CA - 5) and trap team was constituted by Superintendent Police, Anti-Corruption Organisation, Lucknow on 27.10.2017 (annexure CA - 4). The learned counsel for the applicant has sought to establish that the applicant was a Gazetted Class-II officer on the basis of several orders of this Court which have been annexed as annexure 2 to the supplementary-affidavit besides relying upon annexure 1, which is an order dated 26.4.2013 issued by Government of U.P. passed in response to a direction by the High Court in writ petition to the effect that the petitioner’s representation with respect to enhancement in the grade pay be considered and while considering the same an observation in the said order is made that, though the post of Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari is already a gazetted post of Group-kha, but there is no justification to enhance the grade pay from Rs. 4200 to Rs. 4800. Therefore according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the Government of U.P. itself has held the said post of the applicant to be a gazetted Class II post. On the basis of the above order dated 26.4.2013 we hold the applicant to be a gazetted officer but it is also on record that in a written communication sent to Superintendent Police, Anti-Corruption Organisation Lucknow in response to his query in this regard from Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, it was informed that on the basis of the scale of the said post, the said post was a Non-Gazetted Class III Post and thereafter only the further proceedings were made. Therefore, it could be held to be a bona fide error and not deliberate one. Therefore, it could be held to be a bona fide error and not deliberate one. The learned counsel for the applicant has also annexed authoritative English text of the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act 1965, as well as Notification dated 12.2.1965 issued by Government and has made argument that the Department of Vigilance Establishment constituted under Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, initially had the power to investigate number of offences of IPC and PC Act pertaining to police officers and officers of other departments, but after formation of the Anti-corruption Organisation with effect from 18.4.1977 the jurisdiction over non-gazetted officers of police deptt. And other departments has been given to the said Anti-Corruption Organisation. The applicant has also annexed Government Order dated 18.4.1977 as Annexure 9 to the main application wherein it has been clarified that so far the Anti-Corruption Organisation had been investigating the matters of officers of the rank of Inspector, Sub-Inspector of Police Deptt. and prosecuting officer and asstt. prosecuting officers of non-gazetted rank but now the power has been conferred upon this organisation to investigate the matters of officers of other departments also of non-Gazetted rank, and thus in the case on hand, according to the applicant’s counsel, the anti-corruption Organisation did not have jurisdiction to lay trap and to further proceed with the investigation and therefore entire prosecution proceedings need to be quashed. 11. We would like to place reliance upon the judgment delivered by Chhatisgarh High Court on 20.11.2013 in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 691 of 2012, Dhananjay Chauhan and 2 others v. State of Chattisgarh in which quashing was prayed of the criminal proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate first-class on the ground of investigation by incompetent authority. According to the facts of the case an offence under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was committed, FIR regarding which was registered by Sub-Inspector of police and he investigated the offence and finally submitted charge-sheet. It was argued that the police officer not below the rank of Inspector was competent to investigate the offence as per Notification dated 16.12.2005 and in this case it was undisputed that Sub-Inspector police below the rank of Inspector had investigated the case. It was argued that the police officer not below the rank of Inspector was competent to investigate the offence as per Notification dated 16.12.2005 and in this case it was undisputed that Sub-Inspector police below the rank of Inspector had investigated the case. Relying upon various rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court it was held that in absence of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner, the defective investigation or investigation by an unauthorized officer was not sufficient to vitiate the criminal proceedings and accordingly the proceedings were held not liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed in this case on H.N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 , wherein Supreme Court held that a defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. Reliance was also placed on Munnalal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 28 , wherein the Supreme Court held that investigation in violation of provision is illegal, however, trial will not vitiate in absence of miscarriage of justice. Further reliance was placed on the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Narayana, AIR 1971 SC 811 , in which Supreme Court held that the illegal investigation by police prior to taking cognizance of offence does not vitiate either the trial or conviction unless miscarriage of justice has been caused. 12. In view of above position of law, the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the Anti-Corruption Organisation, Lucknow did not have the jurisdiction in the case on hand to lay trap for the accused applicants and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to investigate the case as well, hence the entire proceedings need to be quashed, does not appear to be carrying any force. It is during the trial that the trial Court would see as to whether any severe prejudice is caused to the applicant by this defect in investigation and whether the same would result in miscarriage of justice. 13. It is during the trial that the trial Court would see as to whether any severe prejudice is caused to the applicant by this defect in investigation and whether the same would result in miscarriage of justice. 13. The other most important argument made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Opposite Party No. 2 who investigated the case was himself present at the time when trap proceedings were going on and several photographs and a CD have been provided to establish the claim of the applicant and the point has been hammered that the said person being heavily interested, could not have been assigned the investigation and therefore the investigation suffers from heavy bias against the applicant. In this regard we would like to rely upon the judgment 27.1.2016 of Madras High Court passed in K. Ramajayam @ Appu v. The Inspector of Police in which in a Reference, R.T. No. 1 of 2015 was made by the learned III Additional District and Sessions judge,Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee, under Sections 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking confirmation of the capital punishment, it was observed that during the hearing of the case it was noticed that the trial Court had not played the DVR (MO-2) and seen the CCTV footages in presence of the accused. It was mentioned that the Court proposes to dispel misgivings, if any, in the mind of trial judges about their power to view such evidences. There would be instances where, by the time the case comes up before the trial Court, the electronic record would have had a natural death for want of proper storage facilities in the Court property room, to obviate these difficulties, on a petition filed by the prosecution, the Judicial Magistrate, who receives the electronic record, may himself view it and take a backup without disturbing the integrity of the source, in a CD or pen drive or any other gadget, by drawing proceedings. The backup can be kept in safe custody by wrapping it in anti-static cover and should be sent to the Sessions Court at the time of committal. The present generation magistrates are computer savvy and they only require legal sanction for taking a backup. They can avail the service of an expert to assist them in their endeavour. The backup can be kept in safe custody by wrapping it in anti-static cover and should be sent to the Sessions Court at the time of committal. The present generation magistrates are computer savvy and they only require legal sanction for taking a backup. They can avail the service of an expert to assist them in their endeavour. Further it is mentioned that recently the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, 2015 (12) Scale 597 , has held that CD is a ‘’document’ within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17 , the Supreme Court has held that tape records of speeches are ‘’documents’ as defined in Sections 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore in the case on hand the CD which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant may be seen by the Court below for reaching a conclusion with regard to the fact as to whether the opposite party No. 2 was on the spot when the trap proceedings were going on and may form opinion as to whether the same was detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the accused applicant in this case or not. It may however be noted that in counter-affidavit the opposite party No. 2 has admitted his presence on the spot but the same has been attributed to different capacity and not in the capacity of a member of the trap team and some explanation is given to the effect that an officer accompanies the team who can make the site plan and do spot inspection after registration of the FIR. 14. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered on 16.8.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011, Mohan Lal v. The State of Punjab in which an F.I.R. was lodged on 3.2.1997 by PW 1 - Chand Singh, Sub-Inspector of Balianwali Police Station to the effect that while on patrol duty, he was accompanied by the Darshan Singh Sarpanch and Asst Sub-Inspector Balwinder Singh. The witness entertained doubts about the appellant upon seeing him. The witness entertained doubts about the appellant upon seeing him. PW 4, Rajender N. Dhoke, IPS, a gazetted officer, was called and the appellant was searched, leading to recovery of 4 kilogram of opium in a bag carried by him. The consent memo was signed by the Darshan Singh and PW 1 seized opium which was separated in a sample of 20 grams and 3 KG 980 grams. The sample seal was prepared by PW 1 and after use, the seal was handed over to A S I, Darshan Singh Balwinder Singh. “Ruqa” was prepared by PW 1 and forwarded to Balianwali Police Station. PW 3 Asstt. Sub-Inspector, Darshan Singh registered the formal FIR and handed over Investigation to PW 1. On conclusion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted, put on trial, and convicted. Allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant it was held that a fair investigation which is but the foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof. 15. It may be noticed that the acquittal judgment has been passed after full trial in the above-mentioned case finding that the accused appellant had been caused severe prejudice due to the investigation having been assigned to the same person who was involved in making recovery of contraband substance from him and not at the initial stage before commencement of trial. It is undoubtedly a settled law that the informant/the person who was involved in recovery should not be allowed to make investigation in the case, because it would be the natural leaning of such a person to see that the prosecution case, regarding which FIR has been lodged by him or the recovery in which has been made by him, should succeed and therefore he would certainly be biased in seeing the accused punished. 16. 16. If in the light of the above facts whether this be treated to be a case of biased investigation, the said view can only be formed by the trial Court after having examined the evidence on record and therefore we are not inclined to interfere in this matter at this stage under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. This application is accordingly dismissed.