JUDGMENT : J.P.Das, J This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the framing of charges against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar in V.G.R. Case No.06 of 2016 for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. One Abhimanyu Khuntia lodged an F.I.R. before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Baleswar that he along with his wife had registered their names with Keshadurapal Co-operative Society for selling their paddy for the financial year 2015-16. Accordingly, he along with his wife gave 599.94 Quintals of paddy to the society on the due date and the petitioner who was the President of the Society assured him that the vendor receipt of the petitioner and his wife would be prepared and payment advice would be sent to the Bank. But, he allegedly demanded Rs.100/-per quintal to facilitate such issuance of receipt and sending the payment advice. The informant further alleged that they have received an amount of Rs.4,79,400/-out of the total amount of Rs.8,45,915.40p. through their bank accounts towards the price of 340 quintals of paddy @ 1410/-and had also received vendor receipt of the 140 quintals but not the payment and had not received the vendor receipt for balance 119.94 quintals of paddy. The amount was not deposited in their account since the payment advice was not dispatched by the Co-operative Society. When the informant approached the petitioner, he allegedly insisted that unless he pays the amount of Rs.50,000/-, the payment shall not be released. Since the repeated request of the informant was not paid heed to by the petitioner, the F.I.R. was lodged and a trap was laid. On 05.04.2016 the informant along with the witnesses and the vigilance staff went to the office of the petitioner and the informant paid Rs.50,000/-to the petitioner in shape of fifty numbers of Rs.1,000/-currency notes which the petitioner allegedly counted and kept on his table. Thereafter, the vigilance officials entered inside the office room and recovered the paid cash and took the hand-wash of the petitioner confirming the acceptance of money by the petitioner. Further requirements of the investigation were complied and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2016. Thereafter, the vigilance officials entered inside the office room and recovered the paid cash and took the hand-wash of the petitioner confirming the acceptance of money by the petitioner. Further requirements of the investigation were complied and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2016. Learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar accordingly framed the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by order dated 18th July, 2017 which is assailed in this present revision. 3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with concocted allegations made by the informant since as the President of the Society, he insisted for repayment of the loan amount taken by the petitioner. It was further submitted that by the alleged date of occurrence, the outstanding loan amount was Rs.55,700/-against the petitioner out of which he gave Rs.50,000/-to the petitioner towards such repayment. But, it has been wrongly shown as bribe money. Secondly, it was submitted that the petitioner, being a honorary President of the Cooperative Society, is not a public servant so as to be prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thirdly, it was contended that as per the allegations made by the informant, he was to get the money for 119.94 quintals of paddy for which the petitioner demanded Rs.100/-per quintal to release the payment. Thus, the total amount being only Rs.11,994/-,the allegation that the petitioner demanded Rs.50,000/-for the same, is not believable. Lastly, it was submitted that the necessary requirements like demand by the present petitioner so as to accept the payment etc. have not been properly investigated into and hence, the charges leveled against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 4. As regards the submission that the petitioner was not a public servant, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State, Vigilance that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC 417 (State of Maharashtra and others Vrs. Brizlal Sadasukh Modani) that any Co-operative Society if has received any aid or assistance at the time of its establishment or in any construction or in any structural concept, it would bring its employees within the definition of the public servant. Brizlal Sadasukh Modani) that any Co-operative Society if has received any aid or assistance at the time of its establishment or in any construction or in any structural concept, it would bring its employees within the definition of the public servant. Some documents were placed on behalf of the State, Vigilance, showing that the Society wherein the petitioner was the President, has received financial aid from the Government from time to time and has also received Government share capital of Rs.3.93 lakhs upto March, 2017. Thus, it was submitted that the employees of the present Cooperative Society are to be treated as public servants and the plea taken by the petitioner that he was functioning as honorary President, would not exclude him from being an employee of the Society. However, this is a matter to be gone into in course of trial basing on the materials placed on behalf of the parties. But, prima-facie it cannot be accepted as a ground to quash the charge. 5. The contention that the petitioner could not have demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-for releasing an amount of Rs.11,994/-, is not correct. As per the F.I.R., the petitioner had demanded Rs.100/-per quintal for the entire amount to be paid to the informant and he had allegedly stated that @ Rs.100/-per quintal the informant was to pay Rs.59,000/-for his entire stock of paddy i.e. 599.94 Kgs but he should give at least Rs.50,000/-to the petitioner. It was also alleged that the informant was paid with the price for 340 quintals of paddy and when he insisted for the vendor receipt and payment towards the price of balance paddy, the petitioner stated that unless the demanded amount was paid, he shall not release the balance amount. Thus, the contention in this regard is not tenable. 6. The learned counsel for the State, Vigilance, has also placed the statements of the witnesses recorded in course of investigation regarding the alleged demand made by the petitioner and the payment of the amount to the petitioner by the informant followed by recovery of the amount and taking of hand-wash, etc.. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the informant was a defaulter in repaying the loan amount and on the alleged date, he was paying the amount towards the said loan, are also the matters to be considered on evidence in course of trial. 7. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the informant was a defaulter in repaying the loan amount and on the alleged date, he was paying the amount towards the said loan, are also the matters to be considered on evidence in course of trial. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there was no basis for framing of charges against the petitioner for the alleged offences so as to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.