JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Anti Corruption Bureau (Vigilance). 3. This revision has been filed to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, (ACB), Chaibasa in Misc. Crl. Application No. 186 of 2018 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 25 of 2017 registered under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby an application dated 03.07.2018 preferred by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of this case and fixed the case for framing of charge on 13.12.2018, this case is now pending before the learned Special Judge, (ACB) Chaibasa. 4. The case of the prosecution as per the First Information Report in brief is that the present case has been instituted on the basis of purported written complaint of one Deepak Sarda, in which it has been alleged that he is a resident of Mango, Jamshedpur and his firm namely Sunshin at Sakchi is registered with Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Jamshedpur Circle. It is alleged that he requested the accused being the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax for assessment of his firm for the financial year 2015-16, but for doing the same he has demanded Rs. 15,000/- and he has stated that until and unless the aforesaid sum is paid, he would not asses the firm for the financial year 2015-16. Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance directed Inspector D.K. Mandal a Vigilance official to verify the allegation made in the complaint. It is said that upon purported verification, it was reported that the allegation made in the complaint is true. Upon submission of verification report, vigilance case was registered. It is further alleged that thereafter, a trap team was constituted and a trap was laid, in which, the petitioner was allegedly caught red handed and allegedly tainted sum of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from the accused in presence of witnesses. It is alleged that when the hands of the petitioner washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, the solution turned pink. It is alleged that G.C. notes were also tallied and thereafter the petitioner was arrested. 5. 10,000/- was recovered from the accused in presence of witnesses. It is alleged that when the hands of the petitioner washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, the solution turned pink. It is alleged that G.C. notes were also tallied and thereafter the petitioner was arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was made by the complainant on 03.11.2017. She has referred to a copy of the certified copy of the proceeding sheet of the assessment year 2015-16. She further submits that on 23.10.2017 the order was already reserved in connection with the assessment of 2015-16. She submits that as the order was already reserved, there was no occasion to demand any bribe money. She also submits that she has also annexed documents to show that the petitioner was on leave from 25.10.2019 till 01.11.2019 as his son was suffering from ailment. She submits that the entire prosecution case is an abuse of the process of law and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 6. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Bureau while opposing the prayer submits that upon receiving the complaint, the allegation was verified and found to be correct and thereafter pre trap memorandum was prepared and the petitioner was caught red handed while taking the bribe money. He further submits that the argument advanced by the petitioner are defence version/documents which cannot be appreciated at the stage of discharge and whatever point has been argued by the petitioner can at best be raised at the stage of trial. He submits that charge has already been framed in this case. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that argument advanced by the petitioner are based on defence documents which cannot be appreciated at the stage of discharge. This court finds that there is enough material on record against the petitioner for trial of the alleged offence. Accordingly, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner. Hence this petition is hereby dismissed. 8. It is made clear that dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the either parties before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 9. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. Hence this petition is hereby dismissed. 8. It is made clear that dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the either parties before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 9. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. Before parting with the judgment it is relevant to consider that vide order dated 27.08.2019 this court has directed Joint Registrar (List & Computer) to hold enquiry in the matter fixing responsibility as to under what circumstances, this matter has been listed after lapse of four month and submit a report to this court within four weeks. 12. Upon perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the Joint Registrar ( List & Computer) it appears that the dealing Assistant Mr. Sumit Samad has stated "that previously matters related to P.C. Act were listed only on Friday and later on after the Constitution was changed, cases mostly under the heading Fresh Filing and admission were listed daily. This Criminal Revision No. 1790 of 2018 was a defective file and as soon as I got a window to list defective list, I listed the same on 27.08.2019. It is also pertinent to mention that this is my first posting in judicial side having assigned file work. Prior to this, after my appointment, I was posted in Criminal Receiving Section of this Court and I have not done any file/case related work." Sri Sumit Samad has also prayed for sympathetic consideration and to accept the explanation/report and exonerate him in the matter. The explanation submitted by the Dealing Assistant (flag ''X'') is self explanatory. He has admitted his mistake and has undertaken not to commit such mistake in future. He has expressed his sincere regret for the inconvenience caused to this Hon''ble Court. 13. After perusal of the report and explanation submitted by the concerned Assistant Mr. Sumit Samad, upon being satisfied, this court accepts the explanation furnished by Mr. Sumit Samad. 14. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.