JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial nos. 9(ii) and 9(iii) are minor defects; hence the same may be ignored. 3. Considering the fact that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are minor in nature, the same are ignored. 4. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the learned Spl. Judge (A.C.B.) Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge, filed under section 227 Cr.P.C. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while working as the Head Clerk of Kharaundhi Block in the District of Garhwa demanded Rs. 3,000/- as bribe for withdrawal of agriculture input subsidy of Rs. 8,160/-. As the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the said bribe amount, he contacted the officers of Anti-Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red handed while taking the said bribe amount. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to page nos. 23-24 of the brief, which is the information furnished to the petitioner by the Circle Officer of Kharaundhi, under the Right to Information Act, that in the said information it has been mentioned that the said payment of agriculture input subsidy of Rs. 8,160/- has been made to the complainant through direct bank transfer (DBT) mode and because of some fault on the part of the bank, the complainant though is the proper beneficiary yet could not get the said amount. It is then submitted that thus there is no laches on the part of the petitioner being the Head Clerk of the Kharaundhi Block in non-payment of the amount nor the petitioner was in a position to influence the payment of such amount to the complainant and accordingly, there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand any bribe. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case by the complainant to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case by the complainant to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar that in the press release issued by the trap team, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has told the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,000/- with the Computer Operator Manoj Kumar and Rs. 2,000/- has been recovered from Manoj Kumar but to save the skin of Manoj Kumar, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar that the allegation against the petitioner is false and as without appreciating the proper facts on the record, the learned court below has erroneously rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the said impugned order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the Spl. Judge (A.C.B.) Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2018 be set aside and the petitioner be discharged. 7. Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau, on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that the case of the prosecution is full proof. It is then submitted that in the trap, the petitioner was caught red handed and upon his hands being immersed in Sodium bi-carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink and all the eye-witnesses including the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that the information obtained under Right to Information Act or for that matter the contention of the petitioner that the money was recovered from Manoj Kumar are at best the defence of the petitioner which can be considered during the trial but certainly the same is not sufficient ground to discharge the petitioner at this initial stage of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Verma that this revision petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the record, it is crystal clear that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of demanding Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification, accepting the same and recovery of the said illegal gratification amount after the trap made by the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, in presence of independent witnesses. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the record, it is crystal clear that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of demanding Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification, accepting the same and recovery of the said illegal gratification amount after the trap made by the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, in presence of independent witnesses. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of consideration of charge an accused cannot rely on the materials by way of defence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurty vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph no. 29:- “29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In view of the specific allegation against the petitioner as already discussed above and the settled principle of law as already indicated above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the learned Spl. Judge (A.C.B.) Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2018 is neither perverse nor suffers any gross illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this revision petition, being without any merit is dismissed. 10. Before parting, it is made clear that the grounds of defence raised by the petitioner can be agitated by the petitioner during the trial and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said defence of the petitioner. Hence, the trial court will not be prejudiced in any manner by this order.