JUDGMENT : B.B. MANGALMURTI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 08.08.2018 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 01(A)/2017-D lodged under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the application of petitioner filed under Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. She further submitted that the allegation against this petitioner is that while allowing withdrawal of amount from savings bank account, this petitioner working at the relevant time as Assistant Post Master, Head Post Office, Dhanbad demanded illegal gratification. On submission of complaint and after verification, the case was lodged. Pre trap and Post trap formalities were done and as per allegation the amount of tainted money was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the court below without appreciation of the materials on record, rejected his application for discharge. The complainant was in habit of lodging cases against different officials and a false case has been lodged against this petitioner also. Actually, complainant wanted some illegal work to be done by this petitioner which this petitioner has refused to do. This petitioner had no role in granting permission to allow withdrawal of the amount from the savings bank account from the Head Post Office although the account was maintained in the Sub Post Office. 3. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that this petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant Post Master, Head Post Office, Dhanbad and as per procedure for withdrawal this petitioner was very much competent to allow for withdrawal of amount from savings account maintained at Sub Post Office. In respect of withdrawal of more than five thousand was within the jurisdiction and capacity of this petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that this petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the illegal gratification and the amount was recovered from his left side pocket. He also submitted that the court below after finding sufficient materials, rightly dismissed the discharge application. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that this petitioner was caught red handed while accepting illegal amount from the complainant. He also submitted that the court below after finding sufficient materials, rightly dismissed the discharge application. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that this petitioner was caught red handed while accepting illegal amount from the complainant. The tainted money was recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner and the recovered amount tallied with the number of currency note mentioned in the pre trap memorandum. Other formalities of pre trap and post trap were also carried out in this case. At the time of consideration of application filed under Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required rather the court below is to see whether the allegation connecting with the accused are available or not. In the present case, the court below has found sufficient prima-facie materials available against this petitioner and thereby dismissed the application for discharge. 5. Having no reason to interfere in the impugned order, instant application is dismissed. 6. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.