Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application for setting aside the order dated 2.2.2011 whereby the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has rejected the petition of discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has not brought on record the alleged application of the informant filed before District Mining Officer, Dhanbad for mining lease for crushing stones which is the main genesis of this prosecution and for want of this document the entire prosecution should have been dropped. It has further contended that the prosecution has not brought on record any chit of paper to show that actually any matter of the informant regarding mining lease was pending before the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad. . 4. Secondly, Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner is not the competent person to grant the lease to the complainant. Furthermore, he has contended that there is an enmity between the complainant and the present petitioner. Lastly, he has argued that there is a contradiction in the allegation made by the complainant as such, in one place he has stated about the demand of Rs. 2,000/(two thousand) but in another place, before the Verifying Officer he has stated about a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) which he has already paid' to the present petitioner. 5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, has stated that the Verifying Officer after verifying the complaint petition and the application filed for grant of lease, he made an enquiry and in that e!1quiry, the complainant has stated before him that earlier he has also given him a sum of Rs. 15,000/(fifteen thousand) but when again the petitioner demanded further a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) from the complainant then he has no other alternative but to lodge the case. Further, it cannot be said that the application for granting lease is not verified by the Verifying Officer. Furthermore, he has submitted that there is no contradiction in the allegation made by the complainant because the complainant has alleged only about the demand of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). Further, it cannot be said that the application for granting lease is not verified by the Verifying Officer. Furthermore, he has submitted that there is no contradiction in the allegation made by the complainant because the complainant has alleged only about the demand of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). He had simply informed the Verifying Officer at the time of verification that he has also given a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner by way of bribe but for which, he has not lodged any complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is contradiction in the allegation made by the complainant. 6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar has further submitted that the petitioner may not be the competent person to grant the lease to the informant/complainant as because he is only working in the said department but he has assured the complainant that if he gives him a sum of Rs. 2,000/- then he will manage to do his work. 7. Mr. Kumar has also submitted that it has come in the impugned order that the petitioner has been caught red handed with the bribe money and when the fingers of both the hands of the petitioner were treated in chemical solution which has turned pink. 8. Considering all these allegations and also considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perusing the impugned order and the materials on record which shows that there is sufficient materials against the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. According, the instant revision application is dismissed.