ORDER : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), the present petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case No. 05(A)/2014-D including order dated 06.06.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken and further for quashing of the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the said court refusing to discharge the petitioner which was brought on record by amendment subsequently. 2. The factual score, as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, CBI: ACB: Dhanbad, based on a complaint filed by one Surendra Kumar Singh, a Proprietor of M/s Surendra Kumar & Co., in short, is that the said complainant Surendra Kumar Singh lodged a complaint before S.P., CBI, Dhanbad with the allegation that the petitioner, who is a Senior Section Engineer (W) I, Engineering Branch, EC Railway, Dhanbad demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from him for taking steps to prepare the M.Bs. (Measurement Books) and bills of completed five civil works related to repair of railway quarters etc. of E.C. Railway, Dhanbad. After verification of genuineness of the said complaint, the case was lodged and the petitioner was caught by trap team on the spot while demanding and accepting Rs.30,000/- from the said complainant in presence of independent witnesses. 3. After completion of the investigation, the CBI submitted the charge sheet on 05.06.2014 and, thereafter, sanction was obtained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the competent authority. The Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 06.06.2014 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After filing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application bearing no. 4537 of 2015 for amendment with prayer to add an additional prayer for quashing of the order dated 16.07.2015 whereby the court below has rejected the petition filed for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code finding sufficiency of materials on record to frame charge in which cognizance has been taken. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. 4537 of 2015 for amendment with prayer to add an additional prayer for quashing of the order dated 16.07.2015 whereby the court below has rejected the petition filed for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code finding sufficiency of materials on record to frame charge in which cognizance has been taken. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Anil Kumar appearing for the petitioner assailing the order taking cognizance as well as the order by which the petition filed for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected seriously contended that the C.B.I. has not followed the Clause 8.24 of CBI Manual at Chapter-8 wherein the procedure has been for preliminary enquiry before instituting the F.I.R. and without obtaining the order of Superintendent of Police, CBI, the F.I.R. has been lodged. As such, the entire criminal proceeding including the investigation and the subsequent order taking cognizance are vitiated and bad in law. It was also submitted that the three ingredients viz- demand, acceptance and recovery responsible to constitute the offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act have not been fulfilled and admittedly no money as alleged was recovered either from the physical possession or conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further contended that the evidence to prove the three ingredients are not available in the charge-sheet submitted at the instance of the CBI. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law. It was also contended that the almirah, from which there is allegation of recovery of the tainted money, was kept in a place where everybody had access. It was also submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with the bill or with the payment rather the work of this petitioner was random checking of the measurement books entered by the junior engineer and since the petitioner has pointed out several anomalies in the work of the complainant and Junior Engineer, this petitioner has been implicated in this case under a conspiracy. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner had not even touched the tainted money from his hand and he had no knowledge of said amount, which would appear from the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI itself. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner had not even touched the tainted money from his hand and he had no knowledge of said amount, which would appear from the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI itself. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Deo the learned counsel representing the CBI seriously contended that the court below after considering the sufficiency of evidences available on record passed the order impugned and at this initial stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidences are not to be meticulously examined and only strong prima facie case or grave suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the learned counsels, it would be proper to examine the scope and ambit of the power of the court below as incorporated under Section 239 of the Code. The Code contemplates the discharge of an accused at three stages. If the case is triable by a Court of Sessions, the accused may be discharged under Section 227 of the Code but if the case is instituted upon a police report and is triable by a Magistrate then it is covered by Section 239 of the Code. The third situation comes on a private complaint filed by the complainant and the provision is incorporated under Section 245 of the Code. There is basically no difference in a discharge petition filed either under Section 227 or 239 of the Code. The above two provisions of the Code provide that upon consideration of the evidence and the documents submitted with the police report as contemplated under Section 173 of the Code and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, if the Court finds a prima facie case and grave suspicion to proceed against the accused, the court has to frame charge but if there is no prima facie case, or grave suspicion, the Court shall discharge the accused. The settled law at this point is succinctly analyzed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ] wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed in para 19 as under:- “19. The settled law at this point is succinctly analyzed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ] wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed in para 19 as under:- “19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.” 7. In another case Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of discharge in a complaint case, lodged at the instance of father of a deceased girl, held in paragraph- 28 that this is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution, without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. 8. True, it is that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the court cannot act as mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass the order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weighing the evidences as if Court was conducting a trial, is not permissible. 9. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weighing the evidences as if Court was conducting a trial, is not permissible. 9. I have critically examined all the materials, evidences and the order taking cognizance dated 06.06.2014 and the subsequent order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the same court refusing to discharge the petitioner and I find that after proper verification of the complaint filed at the instance of the complainant, the instant first information report was lodged on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dhanbad and prima facie there is no violation of any rules of CBI Manuals. I further find that prima facie there appears to be sufficient evidence on record or grave suspicion to show the demand of illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- and subsequent payment of Rs.20,000/- and this part has been discussed in the order impugned by quoting the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner. Obviously, this is not the stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused even if the accused/petitioner is successful in showing some suspicion. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on recovery of the tainted money. Even if there is some suspicion on recovery of the tainted money either from the physical possession or conscious possession of the petitioner, but as there is prima facie evidence for demand and acceptance, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial otherwise it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The court below has considered the evidences available on record and found a prima facie case and sufficiency of materials against the petitioner to proceed and frame charge against him. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any plausible ground to interfere in the criminal proceeding pending in the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 05(A)/2014-D and also in the order dated 16.07.2015 passed on the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.