JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. 2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects pointed by the Stamp Reporter at S. No. 9 (vi) part and 9 (vii) are minor defects and because of lockdown, the petitioner is not able to file the typed copy of the said documents and hence, it is submitted that the said defects be ignored. 3. Considering the facts of the case and the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed by the Stamp Reporter at S. No. 9 (vi) part and 9 (vii) being the minor in nature are ignored. 4. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, (ACB) Dumka in vigilance Case No. 22A of 2017, whereby and whereunder, learned court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as District Labour Superintendent-cum-District Skill Development Officer, Deoghar, he demanded illegal gratification for discharging his official duty in releasing the cheque towards payment of services rendered under a Government scheme by an NGO of which, the complainant was an employee. It is further alleged that the petitioner instructed the complainant to give the bribe amount to his subordinate public servant-who is the co-accused and after the said subordinate being the clerk in the said office of the petitioner, received the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/- he was caught red handed by the members of the trap team. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted inter-alia against the petitioner and vide the impugned order, learned court below rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. 6. 40,000/- he was caught red handed by the members of the trap team. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted inter-alia against the petitioner and vide the impugned order, learned court below rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having received the bribe amount and learned trial court has failed to take into consideration that the petitioner neither demanded nor accepted anything either as illegal gratification or otherwise, from the complainant or anybody else and also failed to take into consideration that the petitioner has been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive, as he pointed out the lack of infrastructure of the NGO in which, the complainant used to work at the time of occurrence and directed the NGO to keep the batch of trainees of 20 as it did not have the infrastructure for 30 students and the petitioner also issued show cause notice in this respect. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 , paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of which reads as under: “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI. 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ext.P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” 7. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery has been made from the co-accused clerk, which is evident from the post trap memorandum, the copy of which has been filed along with this criminal revision petition, hence, mere recovery of currency notes from the co-accused person cannot constitute any offence punishable under penal provisions of Preventions of Corruption Act, 1988 as it is not established that the petitioner has voluntarily accepted money knowing the same to be bribe. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on the date of occurrence, petitioner was at Dumka and not at Deoghar, where the alleged occurrence took place which is evident from the fact that he was not arrested on the date of occurrence. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel that learned court below failed to take into consideration that the complaint is vexatious one and the complainant has mala-fide intention to implicate the petitioner in this case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560 , paragraph 28 and 29 of which reads as under: “28. Further, what constitutes illegal gratification is a question of law; whether on the evidence that crime has been committed is a question of fact. If, therefore, the evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of a bribe leaves room for doubt and does not displace wholly, the presumption of innocence, the charge cannot be said to have been established. 29. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of A.P. this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 159, Paras 22-23) “22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasised, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” Hence, the proof of demand has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act which is absent in the case at hand.” 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as the allegation against the demand and acceptance of bribe leaves room for doubt, hence, learned trial court ought not have rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as the allegation against the demand and acceptance of bribe leaves room for doubt, hence, learned trial court ought not have rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC Online SC 1841, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragraph 30, 31 and 32: “30. In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy against the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs. 4000/-) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the appellant. 31. In our view, the prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 4000/- by the appellant from the Complainant on 29.03.1995 as per the charges framed against him. 32. Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too [See: M.K. Harshan vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720 ].” 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as the allegations made against the petitioner do not constitute the twin requirements of demand and acceptance of bribe money by the petitioner, hence, this is a fit case where the petitioner be discharged and it is submitted that learned court below committed illegality in not discharging the petitioner, hence, the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, (ACB) Dumka in vigilance Case No. 22A of 2017 be set aside and the petitioner be discharged. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted drawing attention of the court to page 51-52 of the brief, which is verification report prepared by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau made upon the complaint of the complainant, that in the same it has been categorically mentioned that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as District Labour Superintendent-cum District Skill Development Officer, Deoghar and therein it has also been mentioned that though the petitioner was under orders of transfer but the new officer was to take charge only on 8th August, 2016 whereas the alleged occurrence took place on 26th July, 2016 and thus on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was very much present and posted at Deoghar which is evident from the seizure of cheque for Rs. 2,05,821/- drawn in favour of the NGO in which the complainant was working. It is next submitted by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau, drawing attention of this court to the search-cum-inventory list, the copy of which is at page 72 onwards of the brief that in the said search-cum-inventory list, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was the District Employment Officer, Deoghar and the same has been signed by the wife of the petitioner and she also did not object upon the petitioner being referred to as District Employment Officer, Deoghar though the same was prepared on next date of occurrence i.e. on 27.07.2016. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau that the contention of the petitioner that he was not present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, is a defence which he can take at the time of trial but the same cannot be considered at the threshold of the prosecution like framing of the charge, hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, (ACB) Dumka in not discharging the petitioner, therefore, this criminal revision petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the records, it is pertinent to mention here that it is evident from the verification report, the copy of which has been filed in this case and kept at page 51-52 of the brief, that Inspector of Anti-corruption Bureau has categorically stated that he heard the petitioner saying to the complainant that the amount of first installment to be paid to the NGO after deducting the TDS was about Rs. 2,18,000/- at which, when the complainant enquired as to what he has to do for receiving the cheque, the petitioner told that the complainant has to give Rs. 40,000/- and also suggested that during his presence in the said post, the complainant should get his second installment released also and when the complainant enquired from the petitioner as to where he will come with Rs. 40,000/- the petitioner suggested to him to come to his office with money. The post trap memorandum also reveals that the petitioner told the complainant that he has to attend a meeting and hence, the complainant should hand over money to the co-accused-clerk Jyoti Prakash Lal and consequently, the bribe money was handed over by the complainant to the co-accused Jyoti Prakash Lal from him the said money was recovered by trap team. 12. From such allegation, it is implicit that the petitioner was in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person and in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person, the said money has been received by the co-accused. It is pertinent to mention here that at the stage of framing of charge, the materials by way of defence cannot be produced by an accused to persuade the trial court in discharging such accused as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768 , paragraph 29 of which, reads as under: “29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him.” 13. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him.” 13. So far as the citations relied by learned senior counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are the settled principles of law but the allegations made in this case gives rise to strong suspicion against the accused of having committed the offence, which is sufficient to frame the charge under the penal provisions of Preventions of Corruption Act, 1988. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and the law discussed above, this court is of the considered view that there is no perversity or gross illegality committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this revision petition being without any merit is dismissed.