Deepak Maheshwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This Criminal Revision petition has been preferred to assail the order dated 9.10.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 4/2013, whereby charge for the offences under Section 7, 13(1), (d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC have been framed against the present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no allegation of demand being made by the petitioner. No trap proceeding was conducted qua petitioner. The petitioner has been involved in the matter without any basis, only on the ground that in the transcription memo some conversation is said to have taken place between the petitioner and complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that despite the fact that demand was verified on 28.11.2011, FIR came to be lodged after three days, on 01.12.2011. He has drawn attention of this Court in this regard to the judgment rendered in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held that no preliminary inquiry is permissible and if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, immediate registration of FIR is mandatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in registration of FIR is also fatal to prosecution case. Hence, the order framing charge against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer stating that though no trap was conducted qua petitioner, the conversation as per the transcription memo shows involvement of the accused-petitioner regarding demand made by the Co-accused, which was at the instance of the present petitioner. Learned Public prosecutor has also drawn attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has contended that if public servant accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward is liable for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and having perused the order impugned dated 9.10.2017, it transpires that the trial Court has proceeded to frame the charge against the accused petitioner on the basis of the State FSL report, the facts mentioned in the FIR and the record made available by ACB. But on perusal of the FSL report it does not show any connecting evidence against the present petitioner. This is also admitted case that no recovery was effected from the present petitioner and the trap was also not conducted qua him. The whole case of the prosecution hinges upon the transcription memo, so far as the petitioner is concerned. On critically examining the transcription memo, it appears that during the course of conversation, he is talking to some other person in some different context. Though some conversation has also come showing that the present petitioner was also party to the conversation which took place between complainant, Ram Prasad and Co-accused Constable, yet if that conversation is minutely examined, it does not reveal any clinching evidence against the present petitioner to show that any illegal gratification was asked by him from the complainant in regard to the complaint under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act and to save him from the civil imprisonment awarded in that matter. Demand of some money appears to have been made by the present petitioner only for the fuel/oil of the vehicle, as the complainant is complaining of some injury in his leg and shows his inability to walk on foot. Certainly that demand is not in regard to the civil imprisonment awarded against the complainant and as a illegal gratification.

6. This Court is of the considered view that no sufficient material is available on record to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner by learned trial Court vide order impugned dated 9.10.2017.

7. Consequently, the Criminal Revision petition is allowed and the charge framed by order dated 9.10.2017 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside.