JUDGMENT G Sri Devi, J. - The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/A.O.1, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., questioning the order, dated 13.11.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2017 in C.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder the application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/A.O.1 in C.C.No.61 of 2015, was dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner/A.O.1 was working as Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Mahabubabad and was Full Additional Charge of the District Social Welfare Officer, Warangal from 20.04.2012 to 30.11.2012 and by virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of Public Servant, as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. One Md.Muneeruddin/de facto complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the de facto complainant"), is a resident of H.No.24-6-138, Fathimanagar, Kazipet, Warangal District and he was appointed as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II on 19.03.1984 and since then he has been working as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II and completed 29 years of service. Though, he completed 29 years of service, he did not get promotion as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I even after his repeated requests in writing. Hence, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and obtained interim orders vide O.A.No.6404 of 2012, dated 16.08.2012, wherein the Tribunal has given interim relief by taking into consideration of his seniority, in case he comes within the zone of the consideration of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I. On that, he met the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal, with a request to consider his case for promotion of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I as per the orders of the Tribunal and also submitted a copy of the representation. Thereafter, he repeatedly approached the revision petitioner/A.O.1 for his promotion in the month of September and in the last week of October, 2012, but the revision petitioner/A.O.1 demanded him Rs.25,000/- as bribe to forward his promotion file along with 10 others. Thereafter, he repeatedly approached the revision petitioner/A.O.1 for his promotion in the month of September and in the last week of October, 2012, but the revision petitioner/A.O.1 demanded him Rs.25,000/- as bribe to forward his promotion file along with 10 others. As the revision petitioner/A.O.1 demanded money, the de facto complainant approached the Additional Joint Collector, Social Welfare, Warangal on 15.11.2012 and submitted a written request along with order of the Tribunal, for consideration of his promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I at an early date as he is going to retire from Government Service on 30.11.2012. The Additional Joint Collector, Social Welfare, Warangal, ordered the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, on 17.11.2012, to put up the file and the same was handed over to the de facto complainant after making entries in the concerned register and on the same day, the de facto complainant went to the office of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal and as the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal, was not available in the office, he approached the revision petitioner/A.O.1, who is Full Additional Charge of District Social Welfare Officer. After going through the order of the Additional Joint Collector, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 again demanded bribe amount of Rs.25,000/-. As the retirement of the de facto complainant is due on 30.11.2012 and he was in a helpless condition, he unwillingly agreed to pay the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/-. On that, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 asked the de facto complainant to meet one Katuku Bhavani Prasad-A.O.2 and then endorsed his representation to B6/A2 as "please put up immediately". As asked by the revision petitioner/A.O.1, the de facto complainant met A.O.2 at his residence at Bhavaninagar, Hanamkonda, where, he demanded him to pay Rs.25,000/- as bribe on behalf of the revision petitioner/A.O.1 for processing the file and to issue orders. In addition to that, A.O.2 demanded the de facto complainant to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe for his mediation with the revision petitioner/A.O.1. The de facto complainant requested A.O.2 to reduce the bribe amount demanded by the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and on that, A.O.2 asked him to meet the revision petitioner/A.O.1 at his office immediately saying that he can request the revision petitioner/A.O.1 to finalize the demanded bribe. The de facto complainant requested A.O.2 to reduce the bribe amount demanded by the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and on that, A.O.2 asked him to meet the revision petitioner/A.O.1 at his office immediately saying that he can request the revision petitioner/A.O.1 to finalize the demanded bribe. Then, the de facto complainant along with A.O.2 went to the revision petitioner/A.O.1, met him in his chamber on the morning hours of 24.11.2012 and finally the demanded bribe amount was fixed at Rs.15,000/- for the revision petitioner/A.O.1 to process the file and to issue orders and Rs.2,000/- for A.O.2 for his mediation with the revision petitioner/A.O.1. Further, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 instructed the de facto complainant to hand over the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- to A.O.2 and also assured him that his file will be processed and instructed to arrange the bribe amount at an early date. The de facto complainant assured them that he will arrange the bribe amount within four to five days. A.O.2 instructed the de facto complainant to hand over the bribe amount either in the District Social Welfare Office or any other place and as there was no other way out, the de facto complainant agreed to pay the bribe demanded. Thereafter, as the de facto complainant was not willing to pay the bribe to the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and A.O.2, he lodged a report on 26.11.2012 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal and requested to take necessary action. After observing all the formalities, a case in Crime No.15/ACB-WRL/2012 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 30.11.2012 at 9.00 hours and arrangements were made for laying a trap. On 30.11.2012 at about 1.50 P.M., when the de facto complainant met the revision petitioner/A.O.1 at his office, he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-, kept in an envelop, with his right hand and kept it in middle of the file pertaining to promotions of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II, which is found on his office table and later kept the said file on a metal stool which is located on his left side and he was trapped by the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau. The phenolphthalein test conducted on right hand fingers proved positive and the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the middle of a file vide No.A3/1302/2010 pertaining to certain promotions of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I, which is found on a metal stool located left side of the chair of District Social Welfare Officer. The contact place of the tainted amount envelop on two papers was also subjected to Phenolphthalein test and the same was also yielded positive result. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal, has seized the tainted currency notes, two papers pertaining to promotions of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II file, Photostat copy of Note file, Photostat copy of Current file, Photostat copy of 13 loose sheets, two attendance registers of staff and officers of office of Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal etc., and resultant solutions duly attested by the mediators. The acts of the revision petitioner/A.O.1 constitute offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for A.C.B. Cases. 4. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.O.1 that the case of the prosecution is that revision petitioner/A.O.1 demanded and accepted bribe from the de facto complainant for showing official favour to him to process his promotion file and for issuing promotion order as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I and the trap was laid on 30.11.2012. The claim of the Investigating Officer is that due to non-payment of bribe amount by the de facto complainant, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 did not process his promotion file. He submits that the promotion order was already issued on 29.11.2012 itself and the de facto complainant has already reported to duty on the same day as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I and that on 29.11.2012 the revision petitioner/A.O.1 went to tour for inspection of colleges at Thorrur and Maripeda and came back on 30.11.2012. Since the de facto complainant has already got promotion and joined duty, the question of promotion file keeping with the revision petitioner/A.O.1 does not arise. Since the de facto complainant has already got promotion and joined duty, the question of promotion file keeping with the revision petitioner/A.O.1 does not arise. He further submits that though the promotion file, which is primary evidence, was processed on 29.11.2012, it is not known as to how the said processed file appeared in the room of the revision petitioner/A.O.1 on 30.11.2012 at 2.00 P.M., as the revision petitioner/A.O.1 has not come to his office room on 29.11.2012 up to 30.11.2012 at 01.50 P.M. It is further submitted that the learned trial Judge should have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offences alleged against the revision petitioner are not made out by any legal and reliable evidence and that he has not evaluated any documents on record. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B. Cases would submit that the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the discharge application filed by the revision petitioner/A.O.1 as there is prima facie material against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The principles for framing of charge and discharge under Sections 227, 228, 238 and 239 Cr.P.C. have been summarized by the Supreme Court in its judgment in State v. S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455 , wherein it has been held that if on the basis of material on record, the Court prima facie forms an opinion that the accused may have committed the offence, it can frame charges. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant conviction. In paragraph Nos.6 and 7 the Apex Court held as under:- "6. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant conviction. In paragraph Nos.6 and 7 the Apex Court held as under:- "6. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of judgments including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 , Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , State v. A. Arun Kumar, (2015) 2 SCC 417 , Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424 , State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2003) 2 SCC 711 , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 of the Code in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) 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; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large 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 rights to discharge the accused. The Judge 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 statements 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 materials as if he was conducting a trial. 7. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial. 7. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , the Supreme Court on consideration of the various decisions about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, laid down the following principles: "(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC 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. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) 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. (iii) The 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, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal." 8. The Supreme Court further in the case of Asim Shariff v. NIA, (2019) 7 SCC 148 , has dealt with the scope of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of an accused. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that "in exercise of power under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., in the Sessions Court (Section 239 Cr.P.C. pertaining to warrant cases), the trial Court has 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. If the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court is justified in framing the charge. It has also been held that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspension, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused." 9. In the instant case, the allegation against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 is that he had demanded and accepted the bribe from the de facto complainant for processing his promotion file and a trap was laid against him, wherein he was caught red handed with the tainted amount. In the instant case, the allegation against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 is that he had demanded and accepted the bribe from the de facto complainant for processing his promotion file and a trap was laid against him, wherein he was caught red handed with the tainted amount. The record reveals that the trap was laid on 30.11.2012 at 2.00 P.M., stating that due to non-payment of bribe amount, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 did not process the promotion file of the de facto complainant, but a perusal of the material on record would show that the de facto complainant has got promotion as Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade-I on 29.11.2012 itself vide proceedings Rc.No.A3/1302/2010-1, dated 29.11.2012 and the de facto complainant had reported to duty on the same day. Apart from that as per the Attendance Register, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 went on tour for inspection of colleges at Thorrur and Maripeda and came back on 30.11.2012 at 1.50 P.M. and he was not available on 29.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 till 01.50 P.M. Therefore, it is clear that the revision petitioner/A.O.1 did not keep the file with him till the day of trap. Further, it is evident from the records that the promotion file was personally taken by the de facto complainant on 29.11.2012 by signing in outward Register after obtaining the signature of the revision petitioner and basing on the promotion orders, he joined duty in promotion post and he worked in the promotion post till his retirement on superannuation. On considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the revision petitioner/A.O.1. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order, dated 13.11.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2017 in C.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside.. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.