JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.01.2019, passed in Vigilance Case No. 13 of 2017 (Misc. Criminal Application No. 341 of 2018) being ACB Jamshedpur, P.S. Case No. 11/2017 by the learned court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge from the criminal liability for an offence under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, was rejected. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Dealing Assistant in the office of the Sub-Divisional Agricultural-cum-District Agricultural Officer, Seraikella and he was only supposed to forward the file to the other Officer after due verification of the application filed by various persons for issuance of fertilizers, seeds and pesticide licenses including the informant. He further submits that as per requirement, the informant was required to have a B.Sc. Agriculture or Chemistry Honors and the informant of the present case did not even necessary qualification obtaining the license. In such circumstances, the informant was pressurizing the accused to wrongly forward his application and when the petitioner refused the same, the present case was lodged against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner, if continued, would be an abuse of the process of law. The counsel submits that an application for discharge was filed by the petitioner before the learned court below, but the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 07.01.2019 and accordingly the same may be set aside and the petitioner may be discharged from the criminal case. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that the points which have been argued by the counsel for the petitioner can at best be taken during the trial as defence. He submits that at this stage of framing charge, there is enough material against the petitioner which constitute more than prima facie case. He submits that at this stage of framing charge, there is enough material against the petitioner which constitute more than prima facie case. He submits that the necessary formalities required for laying a trap have been complied with and the petitioner was caught red handed with the tainted money. He submits that charge sheet has already been submitted on 11.08.2017 and prosecution sanctioned has also been accorded on 08.02.2018 and accordingly the court proceeded with the matter. He submits that the present case may be dismissed. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that considering the nature of allegation which has been levelled against the petitioner and the materials collected during investigation, the learned court below has rejected the petitioner''s application for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 07.01.2019. 7. After going through the impugned order passed by the learned court below in Vigilance Case No. 13 of 2017, this Court finds that the impugned order is well-reasoned order and the learned court below considering the allegation that the petitioner was caught red handed with tainted money, has refused to discharge the petitioner and has also recorded that there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge against the accused under the provisions of Sections 7/13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below and is not inclined to exercise power under the provisions of Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the present Cr. Revision No. 127 of 2019 is hereby dismissed. 9. It is observed that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.