Jodhpur, Aug. 5 -- The Rajasthan high court has declined to quash an FIR registered against Chandra Kant Ramawat, a former assistant project coordinator in Jalore, who was allegedly involved in a bribery case investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The court held that prima facie evidence, including telephonic conversation recordings, indicates complicity in the alleged offence and cannot be brushed aside as mere suspicion, a prosecutor familiar with the case said on Monday. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, while dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Ramawat under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, observed: "The said telephonic evidence prima facie indicates the complicitness of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime which is something more than a mere needle of suspicion." Ramawat had sought quashing of FIR registered by the ACB, Jodhpur, contending that he was falsely implicated in the case and that no investigation could have been conducted against him without prior sanction from the competent authority, as required under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The case arose from a complaint lodged by one Brijesh Meena, who alleged that Ramawat and the principal of Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya School, Ummedabad, Khushboo Gehlot, had demanded Rs.3,000 to dispose of a complaint filed against him. ACB officials laid a trap and caught Gehlot red-handed. Ramawat, although not present at the scene, was later arrested. Rejecting the argument that the demand was linked to an administrative recommendation and hence protected under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court said, "The expression 'recommendation' and 'decision'... cannot be made a tool or used as an unbridled shelter to protect corrupt government officials who have made any recommendation or had taken a particular decision for their personal benefit." The judge further clarified that while Section 17-A serves to protect honest officials from vexatious proceedings, it does not extend immunity to those caught through independent electronic evidence such as audio recordings. "It would be a travesty of justice if the prosecution against him is not allowed to be initiated/continued," the court remarked. Ramawat had also argued that the ACB investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank mandated by the PC Act. However, the court cited a 1978 notification issued by the governor of Rajasthan authorising inspectors in the ACB to conduct such investigations. Regarding the defence that no official work of the complainant was pending on the date of the trap, the court held that such factual matters should be addressed during the trial and not at the quashing stage....