JUDGMENT B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. Instant application has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in R.C. Case No.11(A)/2017-R registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by which the application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge was rejected. 3. The short fact of that case is that on written complaint of Manoj Kumar Munda about the illegal demand of Rs.15,000/- by Parikshit Mahatha, Constable, Railway Protection Force, Muri from the complainant for not seizing his motorcycle and also not arresting him. This complaint was verified and thereafter a report was submitted and F.I.R. was registered. A trap team was constituted and formality of pre trap memorandum was observed. Further case is that on 03.12.2017 co-accused Parikshit Mahatha was caught red handed while he was demanding and accepting the illegal amount of Rs.12,500/- from the complainant near Bokaro Railway Station and at that time he made a call to this petitioner/accused-Jitendra Meena being Senior Officer of Parikshit Mahata, Constable. During telephonic conversation the petitioner was arrested and their conversation was also recorded. The currency notes recovered from the possession of co-accused Parikshit Mahatha tallied with the numbers mentioned in pre trap memorandum. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually the C.B.I. has received complaint with regard to co-accused Parikshit Mahata who was a constable in Railway Protection Force but later on the C.B.I. improved the story and made false allegation against this petitioner in the F.I.R. as well as in other documents and there is only allegation that coaccused Parikshit Mahata had talked to his senior before acceptance of bribe amount but name of this petitioner never appeared in those documents. Later on this petitioner was also implicated and after arrest he was forwarded before the C.B.I. court as co-accused. Learned counsel further submitted that neither the tainted money was recovered from the possession of this petitioner nor there is any evidence that this petitioner had demanded the money. The court below without appreciating the fact that the case was improved and this petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case has rejected the petitioner''s application for discharge. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that neither the tainted money was recovered from the possession of this petitioner nor there is any evidence that this petitioner had demanded the money. The court below without appreciating the fact that the case was improved and this petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case has rejected the petitioner''s application for discharge. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that although initially the F.I.R. was lodged in which only the name of co-accused Parikshit Mahata was there but at the time of verification of complaint it revealed that coaccused Parikshit Mahata was getting instruction from his Senior Officer and thereafter he reduced the demanded bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.12,500/-. During verification a memory card was inserted in Sony DVR and it was put on recording mode and the entire conversation was recorded. After reaching the C.B.I. office copy of SD card relating to this verification report was sealed and in forwarding memo it has been mentioned that accused Parikshit Mahata admitted that he has accepted the money on behalf of his senior Jitendra Meena, Sub-Inspector Railway Protection Force, Muri. He further submitted that voice sample memorandum attached with the chargesheet also reveal that voice sample in respect of transcription pertaining to voice of Parikshit Mahatha recorded during conversation of Parikshit Mahatha on 03.12.2017 during transaction of tainted bribe amount which has been saved and thereafter Sri Jitendra Meena, Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Muri was called before the above witness who was requested to give his voice sample but Sri Jitendra Meena refused to give his voice sample. He further submitted that due to this reason, the charge-sheet has been submitted against accused Parikshit Mahatha, Constable, Railway Protection Force, Muri as well as against petitioner Jitendra Meena also as at the relevant time he was posted as Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Muri and had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.12,500/- in conspiracy with co-accused Parikshit Mahatha by abusing his official position. This petitioner has instructed co-accused to keep Rs.2500/- as his share and deposit the remaining bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- in his account. 6. This petitioner has instructed co-accused to keep Rs.2500/- as his share and deposit the remaining bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- in his account. 6. Considering the above submissions of the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that this petitioner roped into in this case as the conduct of the co-accused Parikshit Mahatha, Constable, RPF was closely observed and since he was getting instruction from his senior, therefore, the prosecution made this petitioner as co-accused in this case. It also appears from charge-sheet that the bribe amount accepted by co-accused Parikshit Mahatha was on his behalf and this petitioner had instructed to keep his share in the bribe amount and deposit the remaining bribe amount in his account. The pre trap and post trap memorandum formalities were observed and on that very basis this case proceeded not only against co-accused but also against this petitioner. The court below has considered the evidences collected against this petitioner and as also against co-accused Parikshit Mahatha and after finding prima-facie sufficient material against this petitioner as well as against co-accused for framing of charge, has rejected the application for discharge. 7. Thus, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, instant revision application is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.