JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with three fold prayers; the first prayer is to quash the FIR, the second prayer is to quash the entire criminal proceeding of this case and the third prayer is that the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi by which the learned Special Judge has refused to discharge the petition in connection with R.C. Case No.09(A)/2018-AC.III be quashed. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who manages the affairs of M/s Bina Textiles Limited of Kolkata and other companies has a warehouse at Ranchi which has been leased out to the Food Corporation of India. For extension of the lease period, the petitioner approached the A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India through one his employee who is also the co-accused in this case. Negotiation took place for extension, with enhancement of rent for which the co-accused A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India demanded gratification for himself and other officials of Food Corporation of India. This petitioner was called for meeting with the Regional General Manager of the Food Corporation of India for in principle approval for extension as well as enhancement of rates of warehouse was given for consideration of the illegal gratification. The co-accused on the instruction of the petitioner delivered Rs.2,00,000/- to another co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India. There is also allegation against the petitioner that he came to Ranchi on 10.08.2018 to finalize the negotiation and also committed payment of another installment of illegal gratification on 17.08.2018 for enhancement of the rental rates of the said godown of the firm and also renewal of the rent agreement. There is further allegation that the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused persons ensured that the co-accused employee delivered Rs.5,00,000/- on behalf of M/s Bina Textiles and out of the said amount, the co-accused-Ranjay Chitlangia paid Rs.2,50,000/- in the morning of 17.08.2018 to the co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India. There is further allegation that the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused persons ensured that the co-accused employee delivered Rs.5,00,000/- on behalf of M/s Bina Textiles and out of the said amount, the co-accused-Ranjay Chitlangia paid Rs.2,50,000/- in the morning of 17.08.2018 to the co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India. The trap was laid by the C.B.I. team and in presence of witnesses on 17.08.2018 at Ranchi, the co-accused-Ranjay Chitlangia and the A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India were caught red handed by the trap team and recovery of Rs.80,000/- was made from the co-accused-Ranjay Chitlangia and Rs.50,000/- was recovered from the co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India. It was also found that the co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India has handed over Rs.2,00,000/- out of the said Rs.2,50,000/- to one Shakil Ahmad, an Assistant Grade-II employee of Food Corporation of India and the said amount was also recovered by the trap team. 4. It is next submitted by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false and he is no way associated with M/s. Bina Textiles which is clear from the description of Constitution of M/s. Bina Textiles mentioned in the charge-sheet itself. It is further submitted that the Food Corporation of India has taken warehouse/ godown of M/s. Bina Textiles on lease through agreement for the last 40 years for storing its food grains and other items, which was extended from time to time and the current period was for three years and it has been clearly mentioned by the Food Corporation of India that considering the 40 years of old association with M/s. Bina Textiles, the Food Corporation of India was ready for renewal of the lease for three years. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not a public servant hence, no offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the case of the prosecution is false, imaginary and far from truth. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not a public servant hence, no offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the case of the prosecution is false, imaginary and far from truth. It is also submitted that the C.B.I. along with the police papers have supplied certain documents in connection with interception of alleged conversation said to have been made through the different phones and the same is sheet anchor of the prosecuting agency but as the said records of the taped messages have not been obtained in terms of law as envisaged under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with 419 A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, hence, it is submitted that the records of the taped messages which has been intercepted has to be destroyed by the Competent Authority hence, the same cannot be used against the petitioner during the trial. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another reported in (1997) 1 SCC 301 paragraph no.35 which reads as under:- “35. We, therefore, order and direct as under: 1. An order for telephone-tapping in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Act shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary, Government of India (Central Government) and Home Secretaries of the State Governments. In an urgent case the power may be delegated to an officer of the Home Department of the Government of India and the State Government not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Copy of the order shall be sent to the Review Committee concerned within one week of the passing of the order. 2. The order shall require the person to whom it is addressed to intercept in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunication system, such communications as are described in the order. The order may also require the person to whom it is addressed to disclose the intercepted material to such persons and in such manner as are described in the order. 3. The order may also require the person to whom it is addressed to disclose the intercepted material to such persons and in such manner as are described in the order. 3. The matters to be taken into account in considering whether an order is necessary under Section 5 (2) of the Act shall include whether the information which is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means. 4. The interception required under Section 5 (2) of the Act shall be intercepted of such communications as are sent to or from one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications to or from, from one particular person specified to described in the order or one particular set of premises specified or described in the order. 5. The order under Section 5 (2) of the Act shall, unless renewed, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two months from the date of issue. The authority which issued the order may, at any time before the end of two-month period renew the order if it considers that it is necessary to continue the order in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Act. The total period for the operation of the order shall not exceed six months. 6. The authority which issued the order shall maintain the following records: (a) the intercepted communications; (b) the extent to which the material is disclosed, (c) the number of persons and their identity to whom any of the material is disclosed, (d) the extent to which the material is copied, and (e) the number of copies made of any of the material. 7. The use of the intercepted material shall be limited to the minimum that is necessary in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Act. 8. Each copy made of any intercepted material shall be destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Act. 9. There shall be a Review Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary, Telecommunication at the level of the Central Government. The Review Committee at the State level shall consist of Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and another member, other than the Home Secretary, appointed by the State Government. 9. There shall be a Review Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary, Telecommunication at the level of the Central Government. The Review Committee at the State level shall consist of Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and another member, other than the Home Secretary, appointed by the State Government. (a) The Committee shall on its own, within two months of the passing of the order by the authority concerned, investigate whether there is or has been a relevant order under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Where there is or has been an order, whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Act. (b) If on an investigation the Committee concludes that there has been a contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, it shall set aside the order under scrutiny of the Committee. It shall further direct the destruction of the copies of the intercepted material. (c) If on investigation, the Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been no contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Act, it shall record the finding to that effect.” It is next submitted that the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the trial court is bad in law as it did not discuss with the aspects pertaining to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1855. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an unreported judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vinit Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Writ Petition No.2367 of 2019 vide order dated 22.10.2019 wherein it was observed that in that case C.B.I. failed to satisfy the principles of proportionality and legitimacy as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 . Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the three fold prayer of the petitioner for quashing the FIR, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of this case and quashing the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi be allowed. 5. Mrs. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the three fold prayer of the petitioner for quashing the FIR, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of this case and quashing the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi be allowed. 5. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for the quashing the FIR and quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of being in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons involved in payment of illegal gratification of Rs.5,00,000/- through the co-accused and there is also specific allegation that the petitioner had come to Ranchi on 10.08.2018 and was actively involved in negotiation with the public servants being senior officers of Food Corporation of India to ensure that the warehouse of M/s Bina Textiles for the welfare of which obviously the petitioner was interested and this petitioner came to Ranchi for the same on 10.08.2018 and the said facts were nowhere being denied by the petitioner in this petition or elsewhere till now and out of the said illegal gratification of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- upon a trap was recovered from the co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India as well as another person namely Sakil Ahmad an Assistant Grade-II employee of Food Corporation of India and the statement of Sakil Ahmad has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he has categorically stated that the bribe amount was given to him by the co-accused-A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India which was arranged by this petitioner on behalf of M/s Bina Textiles. Hence, it is submitted by Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. that there is sufficient materials in the record to frame charge against the petitioner as well for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as other offences punishable under the penal provision of the Indian Penal Code and the penal provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the co-accused being the Assistant Manager, A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India- is a public servant. To counter the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding inadmissibility of the evidence obtained by unauthorized tapping of telephones of the petitioner with the co-accused persons, learned counsel for the C.B.I. relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under in paragraph 153 to 155:- “153. … … … … … … … … … … On the relevant day, the interception of messages was governed by Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 read with Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules,1951. The substantive power of interception by the Government or the authorized officer is conferred by Section 5. The modalities and procedure for interception is governed by the said Rules. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the two accused Shaukat and Gilani, that even the Rule 419A, has not been complied with in the instant case, and, therefore, the tape- recorded conversation obtained by such interception cannot be utilized by the prosecution to incriminate the said accused. It is the contention of learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, that there was substantial compliance with Rule 419A and, in any case, even if the interception did not take place in strict conformity with the Rule, that does not affect the admissibility of the communications so recorded. In other words, his submission is that the illegality or irregularity in interception does not affect its admissibility in evidence there being no specific embargo against the admissibility in the Telegraph Act or in the Rules. Irrespective of the merit in the first contention of Mr. Gopal Subramanium, we find force in the alternative contention advanced by him. 154. In regard to the first aspect, two infirmities are pointed out in the relevant orders authorizing and confirming the interception of specified telephone numbers. It is not shown by the prosecution that the Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau who authorized the interception, holds the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Secondly, the confirmation orders passed by the Home Secretary (contained in volume 7 of lower Court record, Page 447 etc.,) would indicate that the confirmation was prospective. It is not shown by the prosecution that the Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau who authorized the interception, holds the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Secondly, the confirmation orders passed by the Home Secretary (contained in volume 7 of lower Court record, Page 447 etc.,) would indicate that the confirmation was prospective. We are distressed to note that the confirmation orders should be passed by a senior officer of the Government of India in such a careless manner, that too, in an important case of this nature. However, these deficiencies or inadequacies do not, in our view, preclude the admission of intercepted telephonic communication in evidence. It is to be noted that unlike the proviso to Section 45 of POTA, Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act or Rule 419A does not deal with any rule of evidence. The non-compliance or inadequate compliance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act does not per se affect the admissibility. The legal position regarding the question of admissibility of the tape recorded conversation illegally collected or obtained is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in R.M. Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 1 SCC 471 ]. In that case, the Court clarified that a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible as res gestae under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. Adverting to the argument that Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act was contravened the learned Judges held that there was no violation. At the same time, the question of admissibility of evidence illegally obtained was discussed. The law was laid down as follows: "There is warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. See Jones V. Owen (1870) 34 JP 759. See Jones V. Owen (1870) 34 JP 759. The Judicial Committee in Kurma V. R [1955 1 All E.R. 236] dealt with the conviction of an accused of being in unlawful possession of ammunition which had been discovered in consequence of a search of his person by a police officer below the rank of those who were permitted to make such searches. The Judicial Committee held that the evidence was rightly admitted. The reason given was that if evidence was admissible it matters not how it was obtained. There is of course always a word of caution. It is that the Judge has a discretion to disallow evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. That caution is the golden rule in criminal jurisprudence." 155. We may also refer to the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pooranmal Vs. Director of Inspection [ 1974 2 SCR 704 ] in which the principle stated by the Privy Council in Kurma's case was approvingly referred to while testing the evidentiary status of illegally obtained evidence. … … … … … … … … … …” (Emphasis Supplied) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has settled principle of law that as Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act is not a Rule of Evidence unlike Section 45 of POTA. So the noncompliance of or inadequate compliance of the provision of Indian Telegraph Act will not affect the admissibility of evidence in the trial of this case. It is next submitted that since there is a series of allegation against the petitioner of paying huge amount of illegal gratification to a public servant and more than half of which amount has been recovered by the trap team conducted by the C.B.I. at this stage, it will not be proper to quash the FIR or to quash the entire criminal proceeding of order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Further it is submitted that there being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., the said order ought not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. 6. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in record, it is crystal clear that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that on behalf of M/s Bina Textiles, the petitioner came for negotiation to continue retention of the warehouse of M/s Bina Textiles by the Food Corporation of India at a higher rate without making any survey, upon payment of huge amount of illegal gratification of Rs.5,00,000/- to the higher officers of the Food Corporation of India including one co-accused A.G.M. of the said corporation and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he came to Ranchi on 10.08.2018 in this respect and negotiated with the officers of the Food Corporation of India at Ranchi for payment of illegal gratification; which has not been specifically denied by the petitioner. There is further allegation against the petitioner that he promised payment of illegal gratification to the officers of Food Corporation of India on 17.08.2018 and CBI registered the FIR on 16.08.2018 and prepared for the trap. As already indicated above; half of the said illegal gratification amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- has been recovered from the co-accused A.G.M. of Food Corporation of India and Shakil Ahmad, an Assistant Grade-II employee of Food Corporation of India and a further sum of Rs.80,000/- has been recovered from another co-accused through whom the petitioner allegedly was paying the said illegal gratification amount. In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra), this Court while not expressing any opinion as to whether there is deficiency or inadequacy in the order authorizing or confirming the interception by specific telephone numbers is of the considered view that there is no impediment in admissibility of the relevant evidence, on the ground that it is obtained by illegal means. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the FIR or the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed at this stage. This Court does not find any perversity or gross illegality in the impugned order 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi vide R.C. Case No. 09(A)/2018-AC.III. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the FIR or the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed at this stage. This Court does not find any perversity or gross illegality in the impugned order 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi vide R.C. Case No. 09(A)/2018-AC.III. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the said order does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.