Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.1. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan. 2. Petitioner has filed this revision application for setting aside the order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.,-Cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st, Dhanbad whereby the special Judge has rejected the• petitioner's application for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the basis of the confessional statement of one co-accused namely, Amar Gupta, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. Except this, there is no other material against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the confessional statement of co-accused has no value in the eye of law. 4. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan learned counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that it has come in the impugned order that the trial Court, after perusing the case record, has come to a finding that the accused- petitioner was caught red handed while obtaining the illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand) from the complainant, Sri Lal Babu Singh and after acceptance of the tainted money, the petitioner handed over the same to the co-accused, Amar Gupta, who was present in the office chamber of the petitioner at the time of transaction. 5. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan learned counsel for the C.B.I., further submits that it has come in the impugned order that the petitioner had instructed the accused to return the tainted money to him while he would leave office for his residence. Thus the tainted money to was recovered from the possession of the co-accused, Amar Gupta in presence of two independent witnesses and the C.B.I. member. 6. Learned counsel for the C.B.1. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan further submits that the said accused, Amar Gupta has stated in hjs statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. about the aforesaid fact. Therefore, it is not a case of quashing of the trial against the petitioner at this stage. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the parties, and considering the materials which is mentioned in the impugned order which shows the involvement of the petitioner in this case and also the fact of acceptance of the illegal gratification from the complainant, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.