JUDGMENT B. B. Mangalmurti, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the A.C.B. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order dated 13.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, A.C.B., Dhanbad in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.83 of 2015 arising out of Vigilance Ranchi P.S. Case No.73 of 2015 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is under challenge, as the court below has rejected the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. She further submitted that on the written-report of the complainant a trap team was constituted but after trap, only the statements of members of trap team were recorded, although the place of occurrence is said to be near tea stall/ road side hotel. She also submitted that actually the complainant was himself an accused in a case and for getting favour he had approached the I.O. of that case and against that this case has been lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that accused- petitioner Madhukant Thakur @ Madhukar Thakur was posted as A.S.I. and had demanded bribe amount from the complainant. On the lodgment of the case, verification was conducted and thereafter a trap team was constituted and pre trap and post trap memorandum were prepared. This petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. He further submitted that from the impugned order it would appear that D.I.G., Bokaro Range has also accorded sanction for prosecution against this accused and the court below after consideration of the material found prima facie case against this petitioner and has rightly rejected his application for discharge. 4. Considering the above submissions of the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that the petitioner while accepting the bribe amount was caught red handed and the bribe amount was recovered from his possession. The recovered notes were compared from pre trap memorandum, and G.C. notes mentioned therein were similar. It further appears that the sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority and the court below after considering the entire material and evidence available in the case-diary found prima facie sufficient material against the accused and rejected his prayer for discharge. 5. Thus, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, instant application is dismissed. 6. It further appears that the sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority and the court below after considering the entire material and evidence available in the case-diary found prima facie sufficient material against the accused and rejected his prayer for discharge. 5. Thus, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, instant application is dismissed. 6. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.