JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.7.2010 whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(D)(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sona Ram has filed a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau stating therein that a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant under Rural Residential Scheme and the loan has to be distributed in instalments from the bank through cheques and Ladu Ram, who was the Manager of the bank, has demanded bribe and he already paid Rs. 4500/- and Ladu Ram is further demanding Rs. 2000/- as bribe for the payment of loan instalment of Rs. 25000/-. On this complaint, F.I.R. has been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner. 3. The main contention of the present petitioner is that money has been recovered from the present petitioner but at the time of trap, the petitioner has explained the facts that Sona Ram had given Rs. 2000/- as the interest of the loan which was due on the loan amount. Rs. 2500/- was given to the petitioner but he had returned Rs. 500/- as the interest due on loan was only Rs. 2000/- is also recovered at the time of trap and the impugned cheque of Rs. 7 25000/- has already been handed over to the complainant on 28.3.2006 and hence the present petitioner should not be charged. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that receipt of Rs. 2000/- is of 31.3.2006 and hence could not explain the money taken by the present petitioner at the time of trap and at the same time, he has drawn Court's attention towards the conversation that has been taken place between the present petitioner and the complainant where specific demand has been alleged. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the cheque receipt has been singed on 28.3.2006 but it was given to the petitioner on 1.4.2006 after getting the bribe from the complainant. 6. It is not dispute that money has been recovered from the present petitioner and Sona Ram has specifically stated against the present petitioner. The transcription of conversation also reveals specific evidence of demand by the present petitioner. 6. It is not dispute that money has been recovered from the present petitioner and Sona Ram has specifically stated against the present petitioner. The transcription of conversation also reveals specific evidence of demand by the present petitioner. The receipt which has been recovered on 1.4.2006 and these all are different versions of the petitioner which can be put during trail. 7. The learned trial Court has rightly held that there is prima facie evidence against the present petitioner to charge him for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D)(2). In trap, bribe money has been recovered from the present petitioner. Transcription of conversation also corroborated the incident. Hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.In view of the above, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******