ORDER : 1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 28.02.2015, passed by Special Judge (A.C.B. Cases), Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 124/2013. By the order impugned, learned trial Court has discharged accused-respondent for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’). 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition, are that on 23.05.2012 Anti Corruption Bureau made endeavor to trap accused-respondent for allegedly accepting illegal gratification and pursuant thereto government accommodation provided to him is searched. During search, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from an almirah and when inquired, the accused-respondent failed to tender plausible explanation for the aforesaid amount. Taking cognizance of inconsistent stand of the accused-respondent as to how and in what manner he is in possession of the aforesaid amount, FIR was registered against him for the aforesaid offences. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused- respondent for offence under Section 13(1)(d)(e) & 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The accused-respondent resisted his prosecution at the threshold and made endeavor to argue on charge. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well learned counsel for the accused-respondent, discussed entire law on the subject, more particularly, the provisions of the Act of 1988 and found that prima facie there is no evidence on record for constituting aforesaid offences against the accused-respondent. The learned trial Court examined the matter in its entirety on the touchstone of Section 13(1)(d) & (e) of the Act of 1988. Section 13 of the Act of 1988 envisages “criminal misconduct” by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) & (e) reads as under: “13. The learned trial Court examined the matter in its entirety on the touchstone of Section 13(1)(d) & (e) of the Act of 1988. Section 13 of the Act of 1988 envisages “criminal misconduct” by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) & (e) reads as under: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant:— (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct — (d) if he — (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” 3. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondent, in my opinion, mere recovery of a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the house of accused- respondent cannot be categorized as obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, nor it is a case of abuse of his position as public servant by the accused-respondent for pecuniary advantage. It is also pertinent to observe here that there is no semblance of proof that respondent being a public servant has obtained pecuniary advantage for any person without any public interest. Therefore, in my opinion the learned trial Court has not committed any manifest error in discharging the accused-respondent for offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988. 4. Now adverting to the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988, suffice it to observe that a petty amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from an almirah of the government accommodation provided to the accused-respondent. 4. Now adverting to the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988, suffice it to observe that a petty amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from an almirah of the government accommodation provided to the accused-respondent. The learned trial Court has made endeavor to examine the recovered amount in the backdrop of explanation tendered by the accused-respondent and the status of the accused-respondent as public servant. After considering the explanation and the pay scale of the accused-respondent, the learned trial Court has found that it is not possible to draw an inference that accused-respondent is in possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of his income. It is needless to observe here that for proving charge against a public servant that he is in possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of his income burden lies on the prosecution. Upon perusal of the entire record of the case, it is abundantly clear that only ground, which has prompted the prosecution to slap this charge against the accused-respondent, is his inability to explain the amount recovered from him. 5. While it is true that public servant is required to show that property or resources available with him are proportionate to his known source of income but then in that background the status of public servant and his explanation cannot be eschewed so as to constitute offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988. In all fairness, learned trial Court, upon examining the entire record of the case and the evidence collected during investigation, has found that the explanation tendered by accused-respondent is a plausible explanation and per se the amount recovered cannot be categorized as disproportionate to his known source of income. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has discharged accused-respondent for the aforesaid offence and consequently closed the case for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. 6. Upon consideration of the matter in its entirety in conjunction with the entire record of the case, in my opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any impropriety or illegality in passing the impugned order whereby accused-respondent is discharged from the aforesaid offences. It is trite that revisional jurisdiction though wide in scope but is required to be exercised when it is found that the learned trial Court has committed manifest error, illegality or impropriety in passing the order and not otherwise. It is trite that revisional jurisdiction though wide in scope but is required to be exercised when it is found that the learned trial Court has committed manifest error, illegality or impropriety in passing the order and not otherwise. Recovery of a petty amount from the accused-respondent has been blown out of proportion by the prosecution and the same has been rightly taken note of by the learned trial Court for exercising its discretion to discharge the accused-respondent for aforesaid offence. 7. Consequently, I am not inclined to entertain this revision petition, and accordingly, the same fails and hereby dismissed.