ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court) in Sessions Case No. 128/2015, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, the Investigating Agency filed a negative final report in the matter on 01.08.2012, however, later on, the trial court had sent the matter for further investigation and thereafter the Investigating Agency has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988. It is contended that the explanation given by the petitioner regarding Rs. 1,00,000/- recovered from him on 08.06.2010 has been rejected by the Investigating Agency without there being any justifiable reason. It is contended that just after recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner, contractor Shankar Lal reached the police station and informed the Anti Corruption Authorities that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given by him to the petitioner and the said amount was for making payment to the daily labourers. It is contended that the contractor Shankar Lal, in his statement, during the course of investigation, has admitted that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was for the purpose of making payment to the labourers and he has given the said amount to the petitioner as he had left the office for some urgent work and he had asked the petitioner to keep the said amount with him and he would take back after some time. It is argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of contractor Shankar Lal but the trial court without appreciating the said piece of evidence have illegally ordered for framing charges against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court of framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is liable to be set aside. 4. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency has interrogated the contractor Shankar Lal, however, he has failed to satisfy the Court that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was handed over to the petitioner by him and the money was for the purpose of making payment to the labourers. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that at the relevant time, when the amount was recovered from the petitioner, no labour was present in the PHED Office for the purpose of receiving their wages. It is also contended that the contractor Shankar Lal has failed to produce the list of the labourers who were engaged by him and to whom the wages were to be paid. It is also contended that amount of Rs. 1,00.000/- recovered from the petitioner on 08.06.2010 was dis-proportionate to his income and, therefore, the Investigating Agency has not committed any illegality in filing charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and the court below has also not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the charge-sheet. 6. On 08.06.2010, the Anti Corruption Authorities recovered the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the pocket of the petitioner. Admittedly, the salary of the petitioner for one day wage was Rs. 577/- at the relevant time and the recovered amount was more than that. At the time of recovery of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner an explanation was offered by him that the said money was given to him by the contractor Shankar Lal. It was also stated by petitioner that Shankar Lal had to make payment of wages to his labourers which were present in the PHED Office and as he had some emergency, therefore, he had left the office immediately without making payment to the labourers and at that point of time he handed over the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to him while saying that he would take the money from him after some time. 7. The Investigating Agency has concluded that at that time when the money was recovered from the petitioner, no labourers engaged by the contractor Shankar Lal were present in the office. 1,00,000/- to him while saying that he would take the money from him after some time. 7. The Investigating Agency has concluded that at that time when the money was recovered from the petitioner, no labourers engaged by the contractor Shankar Lal were present in the office. The Investigating Agency has also concluded that Shankar Lal has failed to provide the list of the labourers to whom he had to make payment of wages. 8. The Investigating Agency has further concluded that Shankar Lal in his supplementary statement has admitted that on 08.06.2010 no labourers were present at PHED Office for receiving the wages. 9. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency has concluded that the explanation offered by the petitioner of keeping the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with him on the day of incident, which is admittedly dis-proportionate to his income is not satisfactory. 10. The trial court after taking into consideration the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Agency and the material available on record has observed that prime facie evidence for framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is available on record. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and after going through the charge-sheet, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie evidence for framing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1) (E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is available against the petitioner, hence, the trial court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.