Judgment 1. Petitioner is sought to be put on trial on accusation of his apprehension with tainted currency notes of Rs. 10,000/- allegedly accepted by him as illegal gratification for obliging B.N.Ojha, proprietor of M/s OTV Media, Kailash Niketan, Patna, for final allotment of sponsorship of Inhouse Entertainment Programme of Patna Ooordarshan and waiving off additional spot buy fees for the month of August, 2001. 2. Gravamen of the charges against the petitioner is that complainant had already sponsored inhouse programme for telecast at Doordarshan for some time, but even though he offered additional Spot Buy (ASB) per day, it was allotted to an agency from Mumbai by the petitioner, who had made lower offer than the complainant. Since the agency, which came from Mumbai had not responded even pursuant to offer, complainant approached the petitioner for sponsorship. Allegedly, the complainant requested the petitioner a number of times for withdrawing his ASB and using his Free Commercial Time (FCT) so that he could recover the loss to some extent. Petitioner, it was alleged, however, assured him to withdraw ASB for the month of August, 2001 and allotment of further sponsorship to him after month of December, 2001, and to oblige him, he asked the complainant to pay gratification of Rs. 50,000/-. The deal was eventually negotiated between them, pursuant to which the complainant was required to pay Rs. 10, 000/- as first instalment and pay rest thereafter. 3. Special Case No. 6 of 2001 came to be registered pursuant to statement made by the complainant, following which services of two independent witnesses having been procured, a trap was laid and while accepting gratification of Rs. 10,000/- petitioner was nabbed with tainted currency notes allegedly offered by the complainant to him. Recovery memo was drawn up at his residence and the witnesses had signed in token of its correctness. 4. The prosecution was sought to be quashed on the excuses that Shri B.N. Ojha had inimical terms with the petitioner and had acted maliciously, having object to get inhouse sponsorship programme of Doordarshan Kendra. Grievance of coercing the petitioner, as usual, was also attributed to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during his arrest who was compelled to sign over the document. Grievance of coercing the petitioner, as usual, was also attributed to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during his arrest who was compelled to sign over the document. While commenting on the seizure memo, learned counsel would argue that it was in violation of the mandatory provision of law, as search of the C.B.I, personnel and the witnesses had not been carried out preceding search of the petitioner which was in violation of provisions of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Alleged search was also faulted on the premises that in the recovery memo no such averments were made about petitioner demanding Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant. About credibility of the witnesses, learned counsel would argue that they were tutored simply to support the case of the CBI. Prosecution case was sought to be faulted also on the ground that the currency notes were allegedly recovered by one Mr. Manoranjan Prasad, so called independent witness who was tutored to support the prosecution version and the other argument was that the petitioner was also suffering from serious eye ailment and had been under treatment of noted eye surgeon. 5. Accusations attributed to the petitioner ex facie even uncontroverted would not persuade one to come to a conclusion that they did not disclose commission of offence alleged, or accusations were absurd and intensely improbable which did not afford grounds for proceeding against him, nor there appears to be express bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for continuation of proceeding against him, at this stage no conclusion can be drawn that the accusations are mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted. Even assuming that these grounds exist, Courts are required to keep a guard for exercise of such powers very sparingly and also with caution and that too in rarest of the rare case. This Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot venture for appreciation of evidence which are functions of the trial court, and if these functions are assumed, that would be usurping jurisdiction of the trial court. Grounds of serious ailment in eye of the petitioner and his release on bail by a Bench of this Court will not act as mitigating circumstance to counter the accusations attributed to the petitioner. Grounds of serious ailment in eye of the petitioner and his release on bail by a Bench of this Court will not act as mitigating circumstance to counter the accusations attributed to the petitioner. Reliance was placed in a case reported in AIR 1992 SC 665 (Som Prakash va.sus State of Punjab) in which observations were made by the Apex Court that the witnesses, who were assisting in conduct of raid for recovery of tainted money from the petitioner, could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids, but as the trial is yet to be held, no such conclusion can be drawn. Observations made in the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 (Madhavrao Jlwajl Rao Scindla vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojlrao Angre) were quite in different context and hence not applicable to the instant case. The prosecution of the petitioner, in the circumstances, cannot be faulted on the premises canvassed by the learned counsel before this Court, and hence there being no merit, this application is dismissed.