ORDER By the Court.--This revision application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in R.C. No. 10-A/11D whereby and whereunder petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when allegation was received that officials of the BCCL of Kustore Area have manipulated the coal stock by mixing soil/stone and overburdened, the officials of C.B.I. conducted surprise check at Rajnagar O.C.P. During verification, the petitioner, G.M. Kustore Area, B.C.C.L. was also present, who in the evening on 3.8.2011 asked one Shyam Lama, Police Inspector, C.B.I. to see him in connection with shortage of coal stock. On the next morning, the petitioner contacted the complainant op his official phone and offered him illegal gratification of Rs.5 lac for favourable report from the joint surprise check team in respect of the coal stock. Immediately, the complainant reported the matter to the S.P., C.B.I. The S.P., C.B.I got the matter verified and found the allegation to be true. Accordingly, F.I.R was drawn under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereupon a trap team was constituted. 3. Further case is that on 4.8.2011, the petitioner arrived at railway siding on his official vehicle where the measurement of coal stock was going on. There the petitioner asked Sri Shyam Lama to come to Kustore Guest House. Accordingly, Shyam Lama proceeded to the Guest House. While he was proceeding to the Guest House, he received a call of the petitioner in his Mobile whereby request was made to wait inside the car just outside the entrance gate of Kustore Guest House. After receiving the call, he acted in the same manner. Accordingly, the complainant Sri Shyam Lama waited for him in his car where the petitioner came and asked Sri Lama not to show shortage of coal more than 5% and then took out bundle of currency note and offered the same to Sri Lama. Immediately he was intercepted and the currency notes were recovered. 4. After completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereupon an application for discharge was filed which was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2011. 5. Immediately he was intercepted and the currency notes were recovered. 4. After completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereupon an application for discharge was filed which was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2011. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, this revision application has been filed. 6. Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that accepting the entire allegation which has been levelled against the petitioner to be true, no offence is made out under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, rather it would come within the mischief of Section 10 of the Act but for that sanction is required and since no sanction is there, the petitioner neither can be prosecuted under Section 12 nor can be prosecuted under Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 7. As against this, Mr. M.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that since this petitioner made an attempt to give bribe to the C.B.I Inspector, he can be said to have abetted offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby the petitioner is rightly being prosecuted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. In the context of the submission, one needs to take into consideration the relevant provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows: 12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11.--"Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Section 7 speaks about public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act which reads as follows : 7. Section 7 speaks about public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act which reads as follows : 7. "Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months by which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine." 10. From its reading it is apparent that if a public servant accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or even attempts to obtain from any person, any gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour to any person it is punishable with imprisonment whereas one is liable to be punished under Section 12 if he abets any public servant to commit offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. Here in the instant case, the petitioner, according to the case of the prosecution, made an attempt to give Rs.5 lac as bribe for showing favour to him by not reporting correct figure of the shortage of coal and thereby the petitioner, prima facie, appears to have abetted offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. So far the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the case falls under Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, it is devoid of any substance. 13. Section 10 speaks about the punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or 9. 12. So far the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the case falls under Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, it is devoid of any substance. 13. Section 10 speaks about the punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or 9. Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does stipulate that whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept from any person any gratification as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any public servant to show favour or disfavour or to do or to forbear to do any official duty he shall be punishable with imprisonment. Similarly, Section 9 speaks about taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant. 14. Here it is never the case of the prosecution that the petitioner made an attempt to give bribe to the Inspector of C.B.I. so that he may induce by corrupt or illegal means any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner made an attempt to give bribe to the said officer of the C.B.I. so that he may induce any public servant by exercising personal influence to do or to forbear to do any official act. 15. Thus, there does not appear to be any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 16. Regard being had to the legal aspect of the matter as stated above and also the fact of the case noted above, the trial Court seems to be absolutely justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the petition for discharge. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 17. However, before parting with this order, it be recorded that any observation made for disposal of this case may not be prejudicial to the case of the parties. Application dismissed.