JUDGMENT Manak Mohta, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Jodhpur whereby the learned lower Court discharged the accused Narayan Lal and Tilak Raj from the charge under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and Section 120-B I.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Om Prakash Mewara had a joint family and he owned a plot in the Gram Panchayat, Kesarpura in Khasra No. 187/2 and patta was issued for commercial purpose. He applied for NOC before the Gram Panchayat for construction of hotel and he met the Sarpanch Smt. Sita Devi, who demanded bribe of Rs. 11,000/- for issuing NOC. The complainant did not. want to pay bribe. A report of this incident was made to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Camp- Sheoganj. On this report, matter was verified and trap proceedings were made and in that respect one Mohan Lal, the person sent by Smt. Sita Devi, was caught red-handed while taking bribe money and a case was registered. The allegations against the present petitioners were that they were also there with Mohan Lal and the matter was investigated. After investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (3) of the Act, read with Section 120-B I.P.C. was filed in the Court, impleading present respondent also as accused, along with others.3. The learned trial Court, after perusing the documents, found that accused Smt. Sita Devi, Mohan Lal and Deva Ram were involved in the offences under the aforesaid sections, but did not find the involvement of present petitioners, therefore, discharged the accused Tilak Ram and Narayan Lal from the charges vide the judgment dated 18.9.2007. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present revision has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. Notice of this revision was given, record of the case was called and arguments were heard.4. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused respondents have wrongly been discharged. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present revision has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. Notice of this revision was given, record of the case was called and arguments were heard.4. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused respondents have wrongly been discharged. He further submitted that it has come on record that when demand of bribe was made and money was handed over and taken over by other accused Mohan Lal, at that time, both the accused respondents were present and there are allegations of criminal conspiracy for obtaining and procuring money by way of bribe. Learned Public Prosecutor also drew my attention towards the statement of Kshitij Mewara, Sanjeev Agrawal and Om Prakash, in which these witnesses have stated the presence of these persons. On the strength of above submissions, a prayer was made to set aside the impugned order and to frame aforesaid charges, with the prayer that the revision may be allowed.5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the accused respondents refuted the contention and submitted that there was no material on record to infer that there was any criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons. Further, it was submitted that neither bribe has been demanded nor money has been received by the present accused respondents. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly discharged them from the alleged offences. It was further contended that one Deva Ram was also arrayed as accused by the police, the allegations against Deva Ram were same that he was also present at the time of taking bribe money. Deva Ram, who is the brother of Smt. Sita Devi, who was found involved in the case being brother of Sita Devi, was charged by the learned trial Court. Against that, Deva Ram filed revision petition before this Court and in that Criminal Revision No. 1082/2007, after hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 24.10.2007 revision has been allowed and he has been discharged. It is submitted that on same type of allegations, he was discharged by this Court. The position of the present petitioners is also of lesser level. They have no connection, whatsoever, with the demand of bribe as well as receipt of bribe. Police has wrongly impleaded them in the case but the learned trial Court has rightly discharged them. It is submitted that on same type of allegations, he was discharged by this Court. The position of the present petitioners is also of lesser level. They have no connection, whatsoever, with the demand of bribe as well as receipt of bribe. Police has wrongly impleaded them in the case but the learned trial Court has rightly discharged them. Before the learned trial Court the learned Public Prosecutor himself has admitted that there was no material against the present respondents. Thus, the contention raised by the State are not sustainable and prayed that revision may be dismissed.6. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the impugned order. I have also considered the statements of the witnesses referred by the learned Public Prosecutor and other materials available on record. But from the perusal of the said statements, inference of criminal conspiracy, is not prima facie established. Neither demand has been made, nor amount has been received by the petitioners. Only their presence have been shown but on mere presence, no inference can be drawn. Same type of allegations were made against accused Deva Ram, who ultimately has been discharged by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2007 passed in Revision Petition No. 1080/2007. The position of the present accused respondents are not distinguishable. The learned trial Court, after considering the material available on record, has rightly discharged them. The contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor are not sustainable. The impugned order is not suffering from any irregularity.7. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is dismissed, the impugned order dated 18.9.2007 is maintained. Revision petition dismissed. *******