JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the sides this revision petition is being decided at the stage of admission. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 24.9.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases Court, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No. 7/91, State v. Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. in which the charge has been framed against petitioner Sita Ram for the offences under Sections 7,13 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. It is alleged that on the complaint of one Shri Ram, the Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau laid a trap against the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Kuchaman City, Circle - Makrana, District - Nagaur. After the necessary steps taken for laying of the trap, the complainant went to the said A.C.T.O. to give the bribe amount of Rs. 500/-, which was demanded by the latter for deciding the tax case in favour of the former. When the complainant approached the A.C.T.O., who was sitting in his office, the petitioner was also sitting in front of him on the same table. The complainant seeing a stranger sitting there stood silently before the A.C.T.O, who said to the complainant that he should not afraid of the petitioner because he was his (A.C.T.O.'s) man. Thereupon the complainant gave the bribe amount to the A.C.T.O. in the presence of the petitioner. After putting the amount in his pocket the A.C.T.O. directed the complainant to bring his account books. As soon as the complainant came out of the office the trap party trapped the A.C.T.O. In the mean time it seems that the A.C.T.O. passed the bribery amount to the petitioner from whose pocket the bribe amount was recovered. The learned Special Judge framed the charge as aforesaid against the i petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of framing the charge this revision petition has been preferred. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the record of the lower Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as soon as the A.C.T.O. has accepted the bribe and put the amount in his pocket the offence of accepting the bribe is completed and there can be no abetment after the completion of the offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as soon as the A.C.T.O. has accepted the bribe and put the amount in his pocket the offence of accepting the bribe is completed and there can be no abetment after the completion of the offence. According to him the charge framed under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner is vague and deserves to be set aside. 6. A perusal of the statement of complainant Shri Ram recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code would show that when he went to offer the bribe amount of Rs. 500/-, which was earlier demanded by the A.C.T.O., the petitioner was sitting on the table of the A.C.T.O. and when seeing the stranger sitting there the complainant did not offer the amount and kept standing quitely. The A.C.T.O. asked him not to worry about the petitioner, because he is man and in the presence of the petitioner the amount was given to the A.C.T.O., who put it in his pocket and asked the complainant to bring his account books. When the complainant went out of the office it seems that the A.C.T.O. passed the amount to the petitioner and later on the trap party recovered the amount from the pocket of the petitioner. From this evidence of the complainant, it is evident that the petitioner has intentionally aided the A.C.T.O. in accepting the bribe. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner has facilitated the commission of the alleged crime by the A.C.T.O. as in the presence of the petitioner the bribe was given to the A.C.T.O. and later on the trap party recovered the amount from the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the petitioner has abetted the alleged crime by aiding. 7. It is well settled in law that at the stage of the charge, a strong suspicion may justify the framing of the charge and even if the scale of pan are even, the proper course is to frame the charge. At the stage of charge what is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to put the accused on trial and not to see whether there are sufficient grounds for his conviction. 8. At the stage of charge what is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to put the accused on trial and not to see whether there are sufficient grounds for his conviction. 8. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 , it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of the charge meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the Court is not required. The charge cannot be quashed on the ground of inadequacy of the evidence. 9. Viewing the matter in light of the above principle of law, I find that no case is made out for quashing the charge and in my opinion there are sufficient grounds to put the petitioner on trial and the learned lower Court has committed no legal infirmity in framing the charge. 10. The revision petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.Revision rejected. *******