JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions are directed against the order of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur dated 2.12.1996 by which he ordered to frame charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against both the petitioners. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. 3. Briefly stated, there was a check post of Commercial Tax Department at Abu Road through which vehicles carrying goods would pass from Rajasthan to Gujarat and vice versa. Both the petitioners were posted there on 9.1.1991. There was a complaint that the vehicles which used to carry goods were supposed to be checked physically in order to realise commercial tax. It was not being done and instead illegal gratification was being accepted apart from the amount of commercial tax and the actual amount of tax was lessoned and was not being realised. The checking was done at 5.00 P.M. on 9.1.1991 by Shri Ashok Naruka, Additional S.P. of the Prevention of Corruption Department along with Shiv Ratan Bohra, Dy. S.P., ACD and other police officials as well as independent witnesses. it were the petitioners who were doing this job of checking of the vehicles. The cash box and receipts were checked arid it was found that it contained a sum of Rs. 9,415/-, this was in order as per the receipts. The petitioners were issuing the receipts. Some envelopes were found hidden which contained a sum of Rs. 686/-. A deep investigation was done and it was revealed that this amount of Rs. 686/- was received as illegal gratification as an entry fee from the truck drivers who passed through the check post. 4. A case was registered and after investigation challan was submitted. On the basis of evidence on record learned Special Judge found a prima facie case against both the petitioners arid ordered to frame charge by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is admitted that some envelopes were found at the check post which contained an amount of Rs. 686/-, there is no evidence that it were the petitioners who has realised this amount from the truck drivers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is admitted that some envelopes were found at the check post which contained an amount of Rs. 686/-, there is no evidence that it were the petitioners who has realised this amount from the truck drivers. Counsel submitted that there ware other officials as well who used to be on duty at different times and, it is not possible to connect the accused petitioners with the amount which was found in different envelopes. It is found from the record that both the petitioners were to perform their duty from 12 O'clock in the night till 8.00 A.M. on 8.1.1991. 6. Learned Special Judge has discussed the evidence in paras No. 7, 8 and 9 of his order which was collected against the petitioners. The main so contention of the learned counsel is that it was doubtful if the petitioners has collected this amount from the truck drivers. Needless to say that the benefit of doubt cannot be given at the stage. The court has to find a prima fade case and a charge can be framed even on strong suspicion. The circumstances in this case speak that it were the petitioners who had collected the amount. Had it been collected by other officials who were relieved at 12 O'clock in the night, there is no reason why they would leave the amount at the check post. The petitioners do not claim that the amount found was their personal amount. 7. In this view of the matter I do not find force in these revision petitions and both of them are hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******