Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.6.2007 passed by Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna by which his petition for discharge for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with Special Case No. 06/2006 has been rejected. 3. The aforesaid case was started on the basis of a complaint made by the informant Jitendra Kumar on 27.2.2006 before the Superintendent of Police, CBI making allegation that the petitioner who was the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda at Hajipur was demanding a bribe of Rs. 2000/- for disbursing the balance amount of cash credit loan of Rs. 50,000/-sanctioned to him after a draft of Rs. 29,034/-had been paid earlier. On the basis of the said complaint a trap was organized and the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the said bribe. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of an Inspector of CBI who is the relation of the informant and it is further submitted that there are no independent witnesses to the trap and neither any employee of the Branch of the Bank nor any customer present at the time of raid had been taken in as independent witnesses rather the trap witnesses are BSNL officials who had accompanied the raiding party. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the informant had been sanctioned the loan and under the procedure for the said loan part disbursal is made and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 29,034/- was paid to the petitioner and only after showing progress the rest could have been paid to him and thus there is no question of demanding or receiving any bribe by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, states that everything has been done in accordance with the established procedure and the petitioner on the basis of complaint received against him had been caught red handed accepting bribe by the raiding party and all the members of the raiding party as well as the two independent witnesses to the seizure list have supported the occurrence. It is further submitted that sanction has been granted by the superior officers of the petitioner after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter including the procedure involved in the sanction and disbursal of loan amount and thus the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not correct. Learned counsel for the CBI also relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi; (2005)1 SCC 568 in which case it had been held that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no any right to produce any material. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the said decision of the Apex Court has no relevance since he has not argued on the basis of any material produced by him rather on the basis of materials already on the record. 7. On a consideration of the submissions of the parties, this Court does not find that any ground has been made out by the petitioner for quashing the order rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioner. In view of the materials already on the record, this Court is of the view that the court below had sufficient material before it to proceed in the matter of framing the charge and thus the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he ought to be discharged. 8. There is no merit in the present application and it is accordingly dismissed.