Judgment :- This Revision has been filed by the petitioner/A.3 to get revised and set aside the order dated 19.06.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2007, by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, in rejecting the prayer for discharging him from the case in C.C.No.1 of 2007 which has been instituted by the respondent for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus: The police registered the case relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and took up investigation for the purpose of trapping the officials concerned in the Central Excise Department. 3. 2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus: The police registered the case relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and took up investigation for the purpose of trapping the officials concerned in the Central Excise Department. 3. The relevant portion of the charge sheet/police report which was filed after completing the investigation is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "A.1 Shri G. Elangovan, Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy, A.2 Shri A.D.Khadtare, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy and A.3 Shri S.X.Jayaraj, Superintendent (Appeals) in the Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy entered into a criminal conspiracy, during the year 2006 at Trichy and other places, to demand and accept illegal gratification and in pursuance of the conspiracy, A.1 Shri Elangovan, on 14.02.2006, demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration as reward from Shri P.R. Sathyamurthy, Managing Partner of M/s.Balaji Steels, Mathur, Pudukottai, the complainant for having an appellate order passed by A.2 Shri A.D.Khadtare, Commissioner (Appeals) in his favour, i.e, by reducing the penalty of Rs.4,77,292/- to Rs.1 lakh from him and thereafter Shri Elangovan repeated the said demand on 20.02.2006 and accepted the same from the complainant Shri Sathyamurthy, Managing Partner of M/s.Balaji Steels, Mathur, Pudukottai, on 21.02.2006, at his office, and in turn, A.1 Elangovan handed over the said illegal gratification of Rs.20,000 to A.2 Shri A.D.Khadtare, Commissioner (Appeals) and A.2 Shri A.D. Khadtare, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the same, knowing fully well that the said amount was given by P.R. Sathyamurthy as a reward for receiving penalty, and in turn A.2 handed over the said amount to A.3 Shri S.X. Jayaraj and Shri S.X. Jayaraj knowing fully well that the said amount is not legal remuneration, accepted the same and in turn to cause disappearance of his evidence, with the intention of screening the offender, handed over the same to A.4 Shri Rameshkumar and A.4 Shri Rameshkumar to cause disappearance of the same from the office, fled away from the office i.e, scene of offence and thus A.1 to A.3 by abusing their official position as public servant by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.20,000/- for themselves, and A.3 and A.4 attempted to cause disappearance of bribe amount and thereby A.1 to A.3 committed offence punishable u/s 120-B I.P.C r/w 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act and A.3 and A.4 committed offence punishable under section 201 r/w 511 I.P.C." (emphasis supplied) 4. The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow, the nitty-gritty, the warp and woof of the case of the prosecution is that A.1, A.2 and A.3 conspired together to demand and obtain illegal gratification within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act and pursuant to which A.1 contacted the defacto complainant Sathyamurthy, an assessee under the Central Excise Act and Rules and demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- so as to give it to A.2 for favourably deciding the appeal of Sathymurthy pending before A.2. However, Sathayamurthy informed the matter to C.B.I and he made available rupee notes of Five Hundred denominations to the tune of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for the C.B.I officials to smear Phenolphthalein powder on them and the trap was arranged. The defacto complainant went to the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise Department, Trichy, with a window cover containing the said notes and contacted A.1 who received it and put it in his pocket. Thereupon, A.1 took Sathyamurthy to the chamber of A.2 wherein in the presence of Sathyamurthy, A.1 handed over the same to A.2 who received it. There was some talk among them, which was also recorded in the tape recorder given by the C.B.I officials to Sathyamurthy. Thereafter, A.1 and Sathyamurthy left the room of A.2. Subsequently, A.2 called A.3 into his chamber and entrusted the said cover containing bribe amount to A.3 for keeping it with him and to return back while A.2 goes to his home. Thereupon, the petitioner/A.3 went to his seat and there, he heard some noise in that office, whereupon he suspected some problem and immediately, he handed over the said cover containing that bribe amount to A.4, Rameshkumar, a contingent labourer working in that office, with the instruction to take it to A.4s home and bring the same on the next day morning. 5. The relevant facts narrated supra could be seen at page No.97 of the typed set filed on the side of the petitioner and the same is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "The office room of Shri Jayaraj is just opposite the chamber of Shri Khadtare. I went to the said room and enquired the person who is identified as Jayaraj and enquired him as to the acceptance of tainted cover/currency by Shri Khadtare. I went to the said room and enquired the person who is identified as Jayaraj and enquired him as to the acceptance of tainted cover/currency by Shri Khadtare. Shri Jayaraj told that immediately after Shri Elangovan along with the assessee namely Shri Sathiamoorthy came out of the chamber of the Commissioner, Shri Khadtare called him and handed over a white window cover in which Rs.500/- denomination currencies could be seen from outside and told him to keep the cover containing Rs.20,000/-in safe custody till he receives it while leaving for home. On his coming back to his seat with the said cover, Shri Jayaraj heard some noise from the office room of Shri Elangovan. Suspecting some problem he immediately called Shri Ramesh Kumar, a contingent Labour available nearby and handed over the window cover containing currency given to him for safe custody by Shri Khadtare. He instructed Shri Ramesh Kumar to immediately take the cover home and to bring the same next day morning. On this Shri Ramesh Kumar left for his residence. The hand washes of Shri Jayaraj turned pink. At this point Shri Jayaraj was declared under arrest at 17.40 hours after observing all due formalities pertaining to arrest. Smt. J. Lily, wife of Shri Jayaraj was informed about the arrest of Jayaraj over telephone number 2456892." 6. In the meanwhile, C.B.I officials had control over the entire situation and in the course of the investigation, the hand washes of the accused concerned and their pant pockets wash turned pink out on test, so to say, it showed positive result that those accused handled the bribe amounts. In fact, the C.B.I officials in sequence, proceeded from A.1 and from the information of A.1, proceeded to A.2 and from the information of A.2, proceeded to A.3 in the same office and systematic investigation has been conducted. From A.3, they ascertained that A.4 was proceeding to A.4s home and by making A.3 to send cell phone call to A.4, the C.B.I officials secured the presence of A.4 to the office and recovered the said bribe money under recovery mahazar. From A.3, they ascertained that A.4 was proceeding to A.4s home and by making A.3 to send cell phone call to A.4, the C.B.I officials secured the presence of A.4 to the office and recovered the said bribe money under recovery mahazar. When the C.B.I officials questioned A.4 Ramesh Kumar, he answered as under: An extract from page No.299 of the typed set filed on the side of the petitioner: "On being confronted Shri Ramesh Kumar told that Shri S.X.Jayaraj, Supdt, called him in a hurry and handed over a white window cover in which Rs.500/-denomination currency could be seen from outside. He received the cover, kept in his right hand side trouser pocket and took it home. After some time, when he was on the way to home, he received a call in his mobile number 98426 81480 from Shri S.X.Jayaraj asking him to come to office immediately along with the cover given to him. As per his instructions Shri Ramesh Kumar immediately came to Central Excise office where he was confronted by the CBI team." 7. All the above narrations are the outcome of the perusal of the following documents: (i) Recovery Mahazar. (ii) Statement of P.R.Sathiamoorthy. (iii) Statement of P.Kalaiahagan, Superintendent of Central Excise, Appeals Unit. (iv) Statement of N.Krishnamurthy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-06. (v) The complaint of Sathyamurthy. (vi) Extracts of the relevant portion of the Transcription of the conversation recorded during the trap proceedings and preserved in a sealed compact disk (CD) marked Q. 8. After completing the investigation, the C.B.I laid the charge sheet/police report before the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, who took it on file as C.C.No.1 of 2007 and Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2007 was filed for discharge which was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the order of dismissal, this revision is focussed on the following main grounds among others: (i) Absolutely, there is no ground for framing charge as against A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B I.P.C read with Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof and under Section 201 r/w 511 I.P.C. Based on frivolous allegations made in the charge sheet/police report, statement of witnesses and documents, the trial Court simply rejected the petition. The defacto complainant is the Managing Partner of M/s.Balaji Steels, Mathur, Pudukottai, doing business in hot re-rolling mill having two units. (ii) The theory of prosecution is that the defacto complainant has to pay central excise duty of Rs.2,92,292/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety two thousand and two hundred ninety two only) per month in both units and that he wanted to get it reduced and thereupon alone, he approached A.1 and that the entire episode started. They are all nothing but make believe story so as to telltale story to fasten A.3 also into the crime. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is nowhere concerned with the alleged bribe incident and he had not dealt with M/s.Balaji Steels, Mathur, Pudukottai. In fact, the bribe amount was not recovered from A.3 also as per the prosecution. The petitioner had no knowledge about Sathyamurthy along with A.1 having handed over the alleged amount to A.2; A.3 is working under A.2 and since, A.2 being the superior officer, A.3 impliedly obeyed and passed it to A.4 totake to A.4s house. Over and above, he had nothing to do with the crime. (iii) From the available facts, no charge could be framed for the substantive sentence as he never indulged in conspiracy. (iv) The trial Court without considering all these salient features simply dismissed the petition. The petitioner/A.3 had no opportunity of knowing what sort of money it was and what for he sent it to A.4. Accordingly, he prays for discharging him from the charges. 10. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner/A.3 should be discharged from the case on the grounds set out in his revision petition? The Point: 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue by reiterating the above grounds set out in the revision petition that absolutely, there is no ground for proceeding as against A.3 by framing charges, whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, would oppose tooth and nail this revision petition on the ground that there are ample materials on record that A.3 also conspired together with A.1 and A.2 and accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this revision. 12. 12. In this factual matrix as detailed and delineated supra, I would like to refer to Kennys Outlines of Criminal Law, (Nineteenth Edition – Indian Economy Reprint 2002 – by J.W.Cecil Turner) which would clearly and categorically, expatiate and expound about the three stages of participation in a crime viz., (i) accessory before the fact, (ii) Principal Perpetrators and (iii) accessory after the fact. An excerpt from page No.116 of the Treatise cited supra, would run thus: "Section. 4 – ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT. 69. An accessory before the fact is a person who being absent at the time of the felony committed, doth yet procure, counsel, commend, or abet to commit a felony. From the old authorities the essential elements which made a man an accessory before the fact were (a) that he must have known the particular deed contemplated; (b) that he assented to or approved of it; (c) that his view of it was expressed in some form which operated to encourage the principal to perform the deed; and (d) that those first three elements came into existence before the time when the offence was being committed." (emphasis supplied) 13. From the above excerpt one could understand that it is explicitly clear that even from the subsequent acts of the accused in a bribe case, prior meeting of mind with other accused in committing the crime could be deduced and such an accused could be held to be an accessory before the fact in other words, conspirator. 14. What I could understand from the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, whether he himself has actually used such terminologies or not, is that he canvassed his case to the effect that the petitioner even as per the version of the prosecution is only the accessory after the fact that he could not be treated as a conspirator or accessory before the fact and that there is no iota or shred of evidence to show that he conspired with A.1 and A.2 before the demand and acceptance of bribe. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor of CBI cases, by way of torpedoing and gainsaying, contradicting and traversing such arguments on petitioners side, wound contend that in matters of this nature, independently there cannot be any evidence of conspiracy composing certain acts between A.1, A.2 and A.3 and that from the evidence gathered, the Court has to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about the existence of conspiracy. 15. The above excerpts as well as the narration of facts and the records would demonstrate that A.1 to A.3 are having their own separate rooms in one and the same building. They were working in the official chambers provided with the door closers, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, one accused could see what is going on in the room of another accused. 16. The versions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases do not hang together and the former would submit that even though those rooms are close to one another, yet what is going on in the room of one, could not be seen by another, whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would submit that as of now, there is nothing to show whether those doors were kept open or partly kept open or completely closed. 17. Be that as it may, at this stage, the indubitable facts are that the CBI officials approached A.3 and got his hand wash, which proved positive for Phenolphthalein powder test and on their questioning about the said bribe amount, he disclosed to them that it had been handed over by him to A.4 for being taken to A.4s house and to bring the same on the next day morning. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount was given by A.3 to A.4 for being taken to A.2s house and at the request of the C.B.I officials, he contacted A.4 over phone and made A.4 to come back to the office and from A.4, the amount was recovered. 18. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount was given by A.3 to A.4 for being taken to A.2s house and at the request of the C.B.I officials, he contacted A.4 over phone and made A.4 to come back to the office and from A.4, the amount was recovered. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to various aspects in the typed set of papers and argue that simply because, A.3 received from A.2 that money at the instance of A.2 and handed it over to A.4, by no stretch of imagination, A.3 could be taken that he might have participated in the conspiracy which might have taken place earlier to such demand and acceptance of such bribe. Perused the order dated 19th June 2007 of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. Ex facie and prima facie the learned trial Judge detailed the relevant facts relating to the case in the first six paragraphs of his order. Paragraph No.7 is relating to the point to be decided and from Paragraph No.8 onwards, he proceeded with his discussion. He also dealt with the case laws cited before him. In his opinion, he felt that the records submitted by the police ex facie and prima facie, disclosed the relevant facts for framing charge as against A.3 also. The trial Judge would be the best judge to appreciate the sufficiency of materials and there is no perversity in appreciating the materials by the learned trial Judge. I do not hold finally that there would be no possibility for the trial Court to give a finding in favour of A.3 after the full trial is over and on an appreciation of actual evidence that would be adduced during trial. 19. These are matters of evidence and during trial threadbare the evidence should be analysed. But, one fact is clear that as per the records, when the police officials asked A.3, he admitted that it was he who handed over the said amount to A.4 Ramesh Kumar who was a contingent worker to take it out of the office so to keep the amount away from the reach of the C.B.I officials. Such a conduct on the part of A.3 clearly and unambiguously speak volumes about the conspiracy A.3 had with A.1 and A.2 before demand and acceptance of bribe from Sathyamurty. Such a conduct on the part of A.3 clearly and unambiguously speak volumes about the conspiracy A.3 had with A.1 and A.2 before demand and acceptance of bribe from Sathyamurty. 20. The very fact that A.3 without any demur and without asking A.2 about the relevancy, history, details, source, purpose, background, significance of the said bribe amount entrusted to him, shows the guilty conscious of A.3 that he was an accessory before the fact so to say a conspirator along with A.1 and A.2 and only pursuant to the previous conspiracy, he simply received it as a party to the conspiracy which had been already entered into between A.1, A.2 and A.3. Subsequently, on sensing that C.B.I officials had arrived at the office, A.3 suddenly entrusted the money to A.4, a contingent employee and instructed him to take it to A.4s house and bring it on the next day as already found set out in one of the above excerpts. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that A.3 being the lower official under A.2, cannot be expected to ask A.2 about the reason for A.2 having asked A.3 to keep the said amount. Such an argument is untenable in my view for the reason that A.3 is a Superintendent in the office of the Customs and Central Excise, having a specific status in the office. Unless there had been prior understanding between the officials, one official will not touch the money, which is attempted to be given by one other official, may be even a top most official. These are all days of approaching Administrative Tribunal or High Court and Apex Court for seeking redressal of even ordinary official fiats issued as against even petty officials. Gone are the days where there might have been spine submission to superiors. Common sense would enable to see in this case what is what. There is no obligation in the official hierarchy if higher official, hands over huge money to his lower official that the lower official having a status, a Superintendent of Customs, should receive it and that too try to receive it by sending out of the reach of C.B.I officials and there a conspiracy starts. 21. There is no obligation in the official hierarchy if higher official, hands over huge money to his lower official that the lower official having a status, a Superintendent of Customs, should receive it and that too try to receive it by sending out of the reach of C.B.I officials and there a conspiracy starts. 21. As such, the conduct of A.3 in accepting the amount from A.2 for keeping it in his custody and thereafter, sensing the police officials were taking charge of the situation in that building, simply entrusting it to A.4 ordering him to flee away from the scene of occurrence would clearly demonstrate and convey, expose and evince that there was a pre-concert and pre-existing conspiracy between A.1, A.2 and A.3. During trial, the prosecution should be given due opportunity to prove the case. These are all natural conclusions flowing from the existing facts. By no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that the aforesaid versions available on record, would not enable the trial Court to arrive at the conclusion that A.3 by his conduct exposed himself for being adjudged as one of the conspirators. 22. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.3 that the petitioner had nothing to do with the relevant appeal relating to which corruption alleged to have taken place, is neither here nor there, for the reason that for committing the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no hard and fast rule that all the accused should have officially and departmentally something to do with the processing of the appeal concerned. 23. The core question arises as to whether from the available records, charges could be framed as against the petitioner/A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B I.P.C read with Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and for substantive offences thereof and for the offence under Section 201 r/w 511 I.P.C. 24. The learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a typed set comprised of as many as forty decisions. I have carefully gone through those decisions and out of which, the following decisions are having relevance, however, even those decisions are not in support of his contention. The learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a typed set comprised of as many as forty decisions. I have carefully gone through those decisions and out of which, the following decisions are having relevance, however, even those decisions are not in support of his contention. (i) In Pandharinath Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 CRI.L.J 5114, the Bombay High Court has held that mere recovery of money from accused is not sufficient to raise presumption against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The aforesaid judgment was delivered in the Criminal Appeal filed as against conviction and not relating to framing of charge. But, here, the facts as discussed supra are entirely different. Here, the conduct of A.3 exposes him that he was also one among the conspirators to demand and receive the bribe. (ii) In State of U.P v. Dr. Sanjay Singh reported in (1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 707), wherein the legal proposition laid down is that mere suspicion of motive is not sufficient to fasten a person with criminal liability. Here, the facts are not mere suspicion, but the petitioners conduct, that is being relied on by the C.B.I as discussed earlier. (iii) The decision of the Honourable Apex Court in State of M.P v. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 338, is relating to framing of charge. An excerpt from it, would run thus: "At the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convincing the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. Per contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence, then the charge can be quashed." (emphasis supplied) Certainly, this decision is relevant and in commensurate with the decision, I analysed the records and for the reasons discussed supra, I am of the considered opinion that there are sufficient reasons for framing charges as against the accused for conspiracy. (iv) The decision in K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar reported in ((2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 547), is on the point that if the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, would not point towards the guilt of the accused, per se, then no charge could be framed. Here, as already observed supra, the facts are different. 25. At this juncture, I would like to highlight to both sides that here, as per police report the charge itself is not for the substantive offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988, whereas the learned Counsel for the petitioner went to the extent of arguing that C.B.I is proceeding against them for the substantive offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988. The perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the respondent C.B.I police invoked Section 120-B I.P.C read with Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and under Section 201 r/w 511 I.P.C. As such, ex facie and prima facie from the method and manner in which sections have been quoted, the petitioner/A.3 as per the C.B.I, is charged for the offence of conspiracy to commit such offences contemplated under Section 7 and 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the petitioner/A.3 and A.4 were charged for the substantial offences under sections 201 and 511 I.P.C. In my considered opinion, from the perusal of the charge sheet, it shows as though C.B.I as on date, is proceeding as against A.3 for conspiracy under Section 120-B I.P.C and not for the substantive offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988, however, the averments in the police report would implicate A.1 and A.2 for the conspiracy as well as for the substantive offence of corruption. 26. A.3 could also be charged as the one who committed the offence under section 201 read with Section 511 I.P.C. This Court while exercising its revisional powers cannot exchange its view on factual satisfaction of the trial Court relating to prima facie case available for framing charges. The materials by themselves taken in totality are sufficient to frame charges as against A.3 as observed supra. 27. The materials by themselves taken in totality are sufficient to frame charges as against A.3 as observed supra. 27. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would argue that at the time of framing charge, it is for the trial Court to frame relevant charges under the various penal sections as against A.1 to A.3, including the ones for the substantive offences under Section 7 and 13(2) and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in addition to framing charge as against A.1 to A.3 for the conspiracy under Section 120-B I.P.C. It is for the C.B.I to do the needful and at this stage, this court goes only by Sections invoked in the charge sheet/police report filed by the C.B.I and nothing more. It appears so far the trial Court has not framed charges after dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2007 in C.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. 28. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, would submit that relevant penal sections submitted in the police report is not the sole criterion for the Court to frame charges and the trial Court could frame charges based on materials even relating to the substantive offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that is a law point to be dealt with by the learned Special Judge in charge of the case. 29. At this stage, from the discussion above and from the materials, I am of the considered view that A.3 could be charged for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C read with Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and Sections 201 and 511 I.P.C as found set out in the police report of C.B.I. 30. In view of my discussions and ratiocination adhered to by me supra, I could see no reason for allowing this revision and accordingly, with the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 is dismissed. In view of my discussions and ratiocination adhered to by me supra, I could see no reason for allowing this revision and accordingly, with the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 is dismissed. On pronouncement of the judgment in the open Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.3 made an oral application seeking a certificate of fitness to prefer appeal, so as to enable the petitioner/A.3 to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that based on subsequent conduct of an accused soon after the demand and acceptance of bribe by two other accused, the prior conspiracy between all the three accused persons cannot be legally inferred. 2. I have taken the oral application of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.3 as one under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution and the main issue is as to whether based on subsequent conduct of an accused soon after the demand and acceptance of bribe by two other accused, the prior conspiracy between all the three accused persons could be legally inferred. 3. Even though there are precedents in support of making such inference, yet I am of the considered opinion that a verdict by the Honourable Apex Court in this regard so far is not readily available. The C.B.I mainly relies on the evidence relating to the subsequent conduct of A.3 as found narrated supra for enabling the Court to infer about the conspiracy between A.1, A.2 and A.3 and I have decided that the conduct of A.3 was so flagrant which exposed him that unless he had prior concert, he would not have acted in that manner. I therefore consider this as fit case for appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court of India.