ORDER Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (PC Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 07/2016, whereby the revisionist has been charged with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. According to prosecution's case, relevant facts are that on 22.12.2014 complainant Rajendra Singh Jadon submitted an application in the office of respondent alleging that he had constructed three rooms in the MLB Girls College, Gwalior. He had an amount of Rs 6,80,000/- due for payment but the petitioner/accused, who is clerk in the D.O. Office is demanding bribe of Rs.7000/- to hand over the cheque. After being satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint investigating officer game him a digital voice recorder duly signed by him for the purpose of recording of conversation of accused with complainant. On 22.12.2014 the complainant went to the office of petitioner/ accused and entered into conversation with him. On return he handed over the voice recorder to the police. The seal packet of the voice recorder was opened in front of the witnesses and the voice was heard. The witnesses were able to hear in clear voice a demand of Rs.5000/- by the petitioner from complainant. The complainant identified the voice in voice recorder. After preparing the data from the computer, the same was put on record along with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The CD work prepared and kept in different envelope. Thereafter, on being satisfied that an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out, the FIR at Crime No. 1/2015 was registered against the petitioner. 3. After the investigation was over, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge (PC Act), Gwalior against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under Section 227 of CrPC and submitted that from the material collected during the investigation it is not established that the complainant had any work pending with the petitioner, therefore, there was no motive available for the petitioner to demand money for extending illegal favour. It is further contended by the complainant that the cheque with regard to payment was in possession of the petitioner and petitioner demanded Rs.7000/- for releasing the same. The said allegation is oral, without any support. It is further contended by the complainant that the cheque with regard to payment was in possession of the petitioner and petitioner demanded Rs.7000/- for releasing the same. The said allegation is oral, without any support. The cheque was account payee of the account of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to raise any illegal demand. The transcript of the conversation recorded in voice recorded has no legal force. 4. The respondent filed response to the petitioner's application and stated that the transcript from the voice recorded was prepared in presence of Panch witnesses, which does not suffer from any kind of infirmity. Therefore, there is no reason to create doubt so far as the demand of bribe by the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner cannot raise any question at this stage and the same is subject matter of evidence. 5. The trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application under Section 227 of CrPC. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner has preferred this revision and prayed for discharge of the petitioner from the alleged charge. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the cheque for an amount of Rs.6,80,000/- was received in the office of Executive Engineer, PWD, on 7.11.2014 and the same was encashed on 14.11.2014. Therefore, there was no question to demand bribe by the petitioner on 22.12.2014. It is further submitted that the trial court has overlooked the fact that the name of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as Pramod Garg by the complainant, thereby identity is completely under dispute because no voice test was conducted by the prosecution, coupled with the fact that electronic record is not duly supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgments in Anwar P.V. vs. P.K.Basheer [(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24] and Shafi Mohd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [2018 Cr.L.J. 1714(SC)]. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the court below has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner regarding non-acceptability of the alleged CD in evidence on the ground that the certificate submitted by the prosecution does not stand on the anvil of the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited cases. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the court below has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner regarding non-acceptability of the alleged CD in evidence on the ground that the certificate submitted by the prosecution does not stand on the anvil of the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited cases. Mere preparation of panchnama at the time of running of CD will not bring the same within the periphery of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Thus, when the mandatory provisions of law are not complied with, the Court below ought not to have framed the charges. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. 8. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the criminal revision. 9. As regards framing of charges and quashing the charges, the law is well settled. 10. In Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another [ (1979) 3 SCC 4 ], it is held- "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 11. In State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava [ AIR 2017 SC 3698 ], it is held- "23.... The legal position is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him the court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. The court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. The court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case." 12. This Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. vs. Satish Rohra, [ 2005 (4) MPLJ 380 ], has held in the following manner:- "6.1 have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and carefully perused the evidence and the material on record. Before considering the evidence and the material on record for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issuance of process has been made out or not, it may be mentioned at the very outset that the various documents and the reports filed by the petitioners/Company along with the petition can not be looked into at the stage of taking cognizance or at the stage of framing of the charge. The question whether prima facie case is made out or not has to be decided purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of taking cognizance or even at the stage of framing of the charge in order to thwart it. That right is granted only at the stage of trial. At this preliminary stage the material produced by the complainant alone is to be considered." 13. That right is granted only at the stage of trial. At this preliminary stage the material produced by the complainant alone is to be considered." 13. The most important fact worth consideration in the present case is that the prosecution had on so many occasions directed the petitioner to give the sample of his voice, which is evident from the letters No. 3141/SPE/2015 dated 30.5.2015; 3262/SPE/2015 dated 08.6.2015; 3571/SPE/2015 dated 24.6.2015; 3842/SPE/2015 dated 09.7.2015; 4707/SPE/2015 dated 19.8.2015, then on 4.9.2015 the petitioner submitted a written application to Superintendent of Police Lokayukta that he is not desirous for voluntarily giving sample of his voice. 14. Thus, this ground of the petitioner goes without merit that the voice sample was not taken by the prosecution, as from the letter dated 4.9.2015 itself it is clear that the petitioner himself has refused to give sample of his voice. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as Pramod Garg where as he is Prabudh Garg. A perusal of the revision memo shows that the petitioner himself in the last para has mentioned his name as 'Prabudh Garg alias Pramod Garg'. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the revision memo may be produced as under :- "It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and the impugned order may be set aside and the applicants may be discharged. Date : 31.10.19 Humble Applicants Prabudh Garg alias Pramod Garg Through Counsel sd/- (Imran Khan) Advocate" Thus from the above, it is clear the Prabudh Garg and Pramod Garg are not two persons and they are one and the same and, hence, this ground is also not available to the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bribe amount was not given to the petitioner. On the date of incident the petitioner was out of station, the amount was given to some Atar Singh Ahirwar, hence no case is made out against present petitioner Prabudh Garg but looking to the copy of transcription it is apparent that there is demand and direction of the present petitioner and on account of his direction/demand the amount was handed over to Atar Singh Ahirwar. 17. 17. In Mubarak Ali vs. State, reported in AIR 1958 MP 157 , it is held that for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, mere demand or solicitation of gratification by public servant is sufficient as it is clear from the provision of Section 7 of the PC Act that if any public servant accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person any illegal gratification, then offence punishable under this Act is constituted. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the case at hand looking to the offences charged against the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the material available on record justify the impugned order. 19. Consequently, Criminal Revision fails and is dismissed.