Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the order dated 111. 2004, passed in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 in R.C.No.47 (A) of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore. 2. In Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 the learned trial judge has conducted an enquiry against the closure report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., by the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai. After examining P.W.1 to P.W.7 in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 against closure report in R.C.No.47 (A) of 2003 of Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, the trial Court has given notice of closure to the complainant. On the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 the trial Judge has passed an order in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 holding that there is no prima facie case made out against the accused to initiate proceedings against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accordingly the learned trial Judge has dismissed the complaint under Section 303 of Cr.P.C., against which the complainant has preferred this criminal revision. 3. The only point to be decided in this revision is whether the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 to the effect that there is no prima facie case made out by the complainant against the accused to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, warrants any interference by this Court in this revision? 4. The Point:- 4(a) It is the case of the complainant that he is a sub-contractor under one Balakrishnan in connection with laying of cable for BSNL in the year 1988 at Tiruchengode, and in that connection as on 26. 2000 a sum of Rs.1,30,473/-is the amount due from BSNL Divisional officer wherein Thiru.Kumaresan, the accused, was working as a Sub-Divisional officer of BSNL, Tiruchengode Division, and that when he (Complainant) met Kumaresan (Accused) in person in respect of the payment of Rs.1,30,453/- for the work he has done, the said Kumaresan had demanded bribe for passing those bills amounting to Rs.1,30,453/-. After registering the complaint preferred by P.W.1-Kailasam, a trap was also laid by the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Chennai, and the said Kumaresan was caught red-handed, but in respect of it, the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, has filed the closure report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused. After registering the complaint preferred by P.W.1-Kailasam, a trap was also laid by the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Chennai, and the said Kumaresan was caught red-handed, but in respect of it, the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, has filed the closure report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused. Only on the basis of the said closure report filed by the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, the learned trial judge before accepting the said closure report of the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, wants to satisfy himself whether the reasoning given in the closure report filed by the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, is containing true facts, gave notice regarding closure of FIR to the complainant. In response to the said notice issued by the learned trial judge, the complainant Kailasam has appeared before the trial Court and also examined seven witnesses on his side. 4(b) P.W.1 is the complainant-Kailasam. His definite case is that he was working as Sub-contractor under K.Balakrishnan during 1991-2000, who had taken contract to lay cable wires in Tiruchengode sub-divisional telephone department under HCL and that he was appointed as a sub-contractor by the said Balakrishnan and he took delivery of the cables and laid the same in the work sport which comes within the division of Tiruchengode telephone department and that the accused-Kumaresan was working at that time as Sub-Divisional Officer in Telephone department, Tiruchengode division and that in connection with the said contract work five bills amounting Rs.1,30,473/-was due from the said sub-division and when he (complainant) met the said Kumaresan for passing of the said bills he had demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. Even though a trap was laid and Kumaresan was caught red-handed, unfortunately P.W.2, the admitted contractor of the complainant under BSNL, disowned the complainant-Kailasam as his sub-contractor. So the evidence of P.W.2 cuts at the root of the case of the complainant-Kailasam. 4(c) It is pertinent to note the evidence of P.W.7-P.Gopal Reddy, who is Deputy Manager of HCL, Trichy, during September-2003. In his evidence P.W.7 would depose that he does not know the complainant-Kailasam, but he knows only P.W.2-Balakrishnan, who was the Sub-Contractor of HCL and that the work of laying cable wire at Tiruchengode was entrusted to Balakrishnan as sub-contractor. 4(c) It is pertinent to note the evidence of P.W.7-P.Gopal Reddy, who is Deputy Manager of HCL, Trichy, during September-2003. In his evidence P.W.7 would depose that he does not know the complainant-Kailasam, but he knows only P.W.2-Balakrishnan, who was the Sub-Contractor of HCL and that the work of laying cable wire at Tiruchengode was entrusted to Balakrishnan as sub-contractor. 4(d) Only on the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7, the trial Judge has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 holding that there is no prima facie case made out to proceed against the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned trial judge in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore. Point is answered accordingly. 5. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed confirming the order in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 in R.C.No.47(A) of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the order of dismissal of this court in this revision may have an impact on the departmental proceedings already initiated and pending before the higher officials of BSNL. I make it clear that the order passed in this revision petition will not have any barring to the departmental proceedings pending before the department.