ORDER M.V. Tamaskar, J. 1. This is a petition by the accused alleging that his prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is illegal inasmuch as he had not demanded any bribe nor he had participated in any act or omission which may come within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is alleged that an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code was being investigated against Bhawanlal Pawar, P. S. Ari., Distt. Seoni, Some time in the year October, 1989, Constable Mustaque Karim Khan visited the village and the constable demanded money alleging that it is required to be given to the applicant. The constable was trapped and the amount of bribe was seized from him. The constable states that the amount was demanded by the applicant through him not to register offence or else he will register an offence. 2. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on the basis of the statement of constable, the applicant cannot be prosecuted as he had not demanded any bribe. 3. The matter was placed for sanction before the State Govt. for prosecuting the applicant. On receipt of the sanction the challan was filed before special Magistrate under Section 7(3)(i)(d) read with Sections 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The question is whether there was a demand of illegal bribe or not? It is a matter to be decided after recording of the evidence. It is not possible to arrive at any definite opinion as the Court below has not applied its mind. Shri Tankha, counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815 ; Bharat Ranjan v. Shyam Sunder, 1994 Cr. LJ. 268 and State of U.P. v. R. K. Shrivastava, AIR 1989 SC 2222 . In Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 1994 Cri.LJ. 1221, the Supreme Court had quashed the prosecution on the ground of delay as the raid was conducted after 6 years. Bharat Ranjan's case (supra) was also allowed on the same ground of delay. Perivasamy v. Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Deptt., 1994 Cri.L.J. 753, was a case in which prosecution had failed to establish demand and acceptance of bribe. 1221, the Supreme Court had quashed the prosecution on the ground of delay as the raid was conducted after 6 years. Bharat Ranjan's case (supra) was also allowed on the same ground of delay. Perivasamy v. Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Deptt., 1994 Cri.L.J. 753, was a case in which prosecution had failed to establish demand and acceptance of bribe. Since the matter is still pending and no evidence is recorded it is not possible to say anything on the merits of the case. Punjab National Bank (supra) was a case in which no criminal breach of trust was found and was a case registered on a private complaint. The Court stated that the process should not be mechanically issued. This is not the case here. In Union of India v. B.B. Bajaj, AIR 1994 SC 1256 , the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of considering the matter before the Court as if it was an appeal against the order of conviction. The Supreme Court has laid down several propositions in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SCW 237 , wherein such powers should be exercised : "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without any order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The present case does not fall under any of the test laid down by the Supreme Court. Case of State of U. P. v. R. K. Shrivastava (supra) was a case where the F.I.R. on its face value did not constitute an offence, the Court exercised powers to quash the same. The present case does not appear to be of the said nature. 5. I do not find any case for quashing the same. The application is rejected.