JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Balwinder Singh Walia, Stenographer in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda was sent up for trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda for accepting a bribe. Charges were framed against him on December 13, 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which have been challenged in this criminal revision petition filed by Walia on the ground that he did not accept any bribe as charged. 2. The complainant in this case was a business man of Ludhiana, Neeraj Chawla by name, who ran a furniture business. In March, 1995 he had sent furniture to Ahuja Furniture Agency at Abohar in a tempo, which was intercepted at Bathinda by Nirmal Singh Gill, Excise and Taxation Officer. Gill threatened Chawla that the bills were bogus and demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. Chawla reported the matter to the Vigilance staff and a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against Gill vide F.I.R. 13 on March 16, 1995. Thereafter, Gill was apprehended red handed. Chawla was naturally the main witness in the case. When the trial commenced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, Chawla appeared on September 11, 1998. He reached the Court on time, was made to wait but the State counsel did not get his statement recorded. After the Court time was over and the Judge left the premises, Chawla told the State counsel that he had lost the entire day because his statement was not recorded. Thereupon, the State counsel told him that if Chawla was worried about his business, he should also be worried about the State counsel, hinting thereby that Chawla should pay him some money. The State counsel then took a short date and told Chawla that his "interest" should be watched and that Chawla would be quickly examined and allowed to go early. 3. On the next date of hearing on September 18, Chawla reached the Court at 10 A.M. When his name was called out, he entered the Court and the Judge asked the State counsel to record his statement. The State counsel answered "Yes Sir" to the Judge and asked Chawla to sit in the Court. The State Counsel again did not get him examined. The case was adjourned to September 25, 1998. The State counsel answered "Yes Sir" to the Judge and asked Chawla to sit in the Court. The State Counsel again did not get him examined. The case was adjourned to September 25, 1998. The State counsel told Chawla that he would keep getting the case adjourned until he received a bribe of Rs. 2,000/-. He further told Chawla that this money had to be shared with the Reader of the Court. Chawla returned to Ludhiana and on September 25, 1998 the matter was reported to Daljit Singh Dhillon, D.S.P. Vigilance, whereafter a raid was organized after F.I.R. 72 dated September 25, 1998 was recorded. On September 25, 1998 Balwinder Singh Walia was posted as judgment Writer to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in which Court Chawla was to appear as a witness against Nirmal Singh Gill, Excise and Taxation Officer. 4. The Investigating Officer organized a raiding party consisting of Neeraj Chawla (bribe giver/trap witness), Sukhwinder Singh (shadow witness) and Sub- inspector Jaswant Singh of P.R.T.C., Bathinda along with Dr. Ashok Kumar, Civil Hospital, Bathinda as recovery witnesses. The Investigating Officer sent Neeraj Chawla and Sukhwinder Singh to the Court of the learned Special Judge and himself followed them along with other witnesses. According to Sukhwinder Singhs statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, copy of which had been attached as Ex.PA/1. He and Chawla entered the Court and saw Balwinder Singh Walia, Steno sitting at his seat. When the State counsel (Tirath Ram Sharma) reached there, Chawla told him that he had brought the money and Tirath Ram Sharma hinted Chawla that he should wait. Tirath Ram Sharma along with Walia came and asked Chawla to follow him. Both went to an adjacent room. The lock of the room was opened by Walia and they both entered the room followed by Neeraj Chawla and Sukhwinder Singh. Neeraj Chawla on State counsels demand handed him over the money. When the State counsel was putting the money in his pocket, Walia asked that the money should be given to him, whereupon, the State counsel took the money out from his pocket and handed over the money to Walia, who put it in his trousers pocket. At this point, signal was given, raiding party entered the room and recovered four notes of Rs. 500/- each from Walias pocket. At this point, signal was given, raiding party entered the room and recovered four notes of Rs. 500/- each from Walias pocket. Till the stage of the raid and the recovery of the money from Walia, the main suspect was Tirath Ram Sharma but when the final report was presented, Tirath Ram Sharma was placed in column-2 and only Balwinder Singh was sent up for trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no connection or nexus between Chawla and Walia in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe. The three main ingredients, which the prosecution was required to establish in order to frame the charge were demand of bribe, acceptance of bribe and recovery of bribe. In the present case, the demand had been made by Tirath Ram Sharma, accepted by Tirath Ram Sharma but only the recovery had been from the petitioner. 6. The circumstances of the case are quite clear and unambiguous. Even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, it would be difficult to sustain the charge because Walia had never demanded any bribe from Chawla either on September 25, 1998 or on any other earlier date. Walia was the Judgment Writer in the Court of Special Judge and not the Reader who had been granting the adjournments. Walia had accompanied Tirath Ram Sharma but may not have known the purpose of Chawla and Sukhwinder Singh following them. Chawla handed over Rs. 2,000/- to Tirath Ram Sharma on the latters demand. Walia took the money from Tirath Ram Sharma. Can it be said that Walia had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from Chawla. 7. The background of the case, as reported by Chawla to the D.S.P. Vigilance and the actual occurrence as contained in the statement of Sukhwinder Singh revealed the exact sequence of events but still fall short of connecting Walia with the bribe demand. 8. The petitioner could still have been charged of accepting an illegal gratification if on September 25, 1998 he had demanded the bribe from Chawla or joined Tirath Ram Sharma in demanding the bribe for the two of them. In such event, even if the money was paid to Tirath Ram Sharma and not to Walia, charge could still have been framed. In such event, even if the money was paid to Tirath Ram Sharma and not to Walia, charge could still have been framed. In the present case, no talk had taken place between Walia and Chawla, no demand had been made by Walia and no acceptance of the money by Walia. The bribe was not paid to Walia by Chawla. Therefore, it is difficult to uphold the charge framed against Balwinder Singh Walia. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of Neeraj Chawla (PW6) recorded in case entitled State v. Dharampal under the Prevention of Corruption Act decided by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana. The statement was recorded on December 11, 2001. Therein Chawla had testified that a case had been registered against him and Ziaudin under Section 188 Indian Penal Code vide FIR 118 on September 15, 1997 at P.S. Kotwali. He was appearing as an accused in the case, which was fixed before the learned Magistrate on January 6, 1998. On January 3, 1998 he met the Court Reader and asked him to have his case taken up early on January 6, 1998, the Reader agreed but demanded Rs. 1,500/- as bribe. The deal was settled for Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter, Chawla reported the matter to D.S.P. Pinder Singh, case was registered, trap was laid and Dharam Pal was arrested red handed. In cross- examination Chawla admitted that in September 1997 he had staged a dharna in violation of Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code and was arrested. He was doing social work and had launched a front to highlight corruption in official departments. He had helped in organising many raids and had been appearing as witness in many cases. The learned Special Judge in Dharam Pals case came to the conclusion that Neeraj Chawla (PW6) could not be believed and his statement was not accepted leading to Dharam Pal being acquitted. 10. In the present case as well Neeraj Chawla seems to have made a serious charge against Tirath Ram Sharma but he said nothing against Balwinder Singh Walia, who was sent up for trial by the police and charged for accepting bribe while the main accused to whom the bribe was paid was not tried. 11. Therefore, I find that the charge against the petitioner is groundless and no circumstance will lead to conviction. 11. Therefore, I find that the charge against the petitioner is groundless and no circumstance will lead to conviction. This petition is accepted, charge against the petitioner and all further proceedings are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.