ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 48 of 2015 including the order dated 7.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. An FIR was instituted based upon a complaint by one Tarak Nath Mandal, who is a Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Behrakudi, Nala, Jamtara in which it was alleged that he was deputed as a Secretary by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer for construction work in various schools and an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- was estimated as the cost of construction of a building of Upgraded Middle School, Behrakudi, Nala. It is alleged that out of the estimated amount, an amount of Rs. 6,43,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and for withdrawal of the rest amount, the commission of Rs. 50,000/- by way of illegal gratification was demanded by the petitioner. It is alleged that on 14.7.2015, the informant had gone to the private house of the petitioner and heard the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant-para teacher, wherein it was detected that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded from the complainant-para teacher. Subsequent to the verification of the complaint made by the para teacher, a trap team was constituted and on 17.7.2005, the house of the petitioner was raided and the tainted currency note to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from the person of the petitioner. After conducting an investigation, having found the allegation to be true charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner pursuant to which vide order dated 7.12.2015, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the District Education Officer, Jamtara at the relevant point of time. It has been submitted that the para-teacher had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- forging the signature. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the District Education Officer, Jamtara at the relevant point of time. It has been submitted that the para-teacher had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- forging the signature. It has been stated that once the petitioner had come to know about the misdeeds of the complainant, a stay was effected on further withdrawal which would be evident from the letter dated 6.5.2014. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner had not issued any letter save and except the letter dated 6.5.2014 and in fact the petitioner was nowhere in the picture or has any role in sanctioning the amount or releasing the amount in question. It has been stated that the petitioner has been implicated at the behest of District Superintendent of Education and other officials. It has further been submitted that petitioner did not have any financial powers and in fact the amount was released to the complainant on 29.6.2015 which was much prior to the institution of the FIR. Learned senior counsel further submits that the question of taking illegal gratification does not arise as the payment is made from the account of School Management Committee of which the District Superintendent of Education has the financial powers. Furthering his argument, learned senior counsel submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has been stated that the vigilance had by manipulation and concoction has very surreptitiously recovered the alleged amount. Learned senior counsel further submits that the documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner are unimpeachable in character and can be taken in consideration in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It has also been stated that the entire act on the part of the prosecution is malicious and in order to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner and on such score also, the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Anti Corruption Bureau has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the tainted money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner which fact has been supported by the witnesses in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the act of the petitioner of stopping the withdrawal of further amount do create suspicion with respect to the intent of the petitioner and it can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances that the petitioner had indeed demanded illegal gratification from the para-teacher. Learned counsel has also submitted that the arguments which has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is by way of defence which cannot be looked into a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and once the petitioner has been caught with tainted money, presumption is made that he had accepted illegal gratification from Tarak Nath Mandal, the para-teacher. 6. Replying to the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the A.C.B., Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that pursuant to the direction of the Jharkhand State Project Education Council, Ranchi action was directed to be taken against 9 para-teachers including the Tarak Nath Mandal who had committed forgery at the time of withdrawal of Rs. 7,80,000/-. It has been stated that at the instance of Tarak Nath Mandal, the petitioner had been implicated which would further show the intent of Tarak Nath Mandal in maliciously prosecuting the petitioner. 7. Although argument had been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to suggest his innocence, but as would appear the conversation between the petitioner and Tarak Nath Mandal was heard by the informant and the tainted amount of Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The letter of the petitioner stopping the withdrawal of the rest sanctioned amount suggest contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner that he did not have any financial powers with respect to release of the amount. The act of the petitioner therefore seems to suggest that only in order to take illegal gratification from Tarak Nath Mandal, such act was done by the petitioner. The act of the petitioner therefore seems to suggest that only in order to take illegal gratification from Tarak Nath Mandal, such act was done by the petitioner. The subsequent act of a release of the rest amount from the account of the School Management Committee cannot in any way help the petitioner as the same is a defence of the petitioner which can at best be considered at the time of trial. The petitioner was caught red-handed with tainted money and presumption has to be drawn with respect to the involvement of the petitioner unless the contrary is proved in terms of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation into the offence as alleged was found to be true resulting in submission of charge-sheet. At this juncture, it is not legally permissible for this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to interfere in the criminal proceeding as whatever has been stated by the petitioner or has been brought on record by him can only be thrashed out at the appropriate stage before the learned trial court. This Court while hearing on application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot sift through the evidences or weigh the evidences at this stage, moreso, when a prima facie case of accepting illegal gratification from Tarak Nath Mandal seems to be in existence. 8. As a cumulative result of the discussions made hereinabove, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.