JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 26.11.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.) Dhanbad in Special Case No. 04 of 2018 in M.C.A. No. 1763 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge in this case. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity of Block Education Extension Officer, Bermo was caught red handed in a trap while receiving the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/- for releasing the bill of the complainant regarding the supply of uniform. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below failed to consider that the petitioner as a Block Education Extension Officer, Bermo has no role to play in purchasing the uniform for the students of the school rather the School Managing Committee was the concerned authority and the Purchase Committee duly constituted by the School Managing Committee is responsible for purchase of the uniform and the accounts for such purchase is managed by the Headmaster and Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the School Management Committee. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no role in purchase of the said uniform and he was not in a position to gratify the complainant, therefore the whole allegation against the petitioner is false and concocted. It is next submitted that the learned court below ought to have discharged the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order be set aside and the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case be allowed. 4. Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner stopped the payment of the complainant. It is then submitted that, it is a case of trap, and there is ample direct evidence in the record to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further submitted by Mr. It is then submitted that, it is a case of trap, and there is ample direct evidence in the record to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that the grounds taken by the petitioner for discharge are the defence of the petitioner-accused which can be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stage and the learned court below having rightly rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner, this criminal revision being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear from the materials in the record that the petitioner was caught red handed upon accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/- for ensuring release of the bill of the complainant towards the supply of uniform to the schools. It is a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, it is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru (2020) 2 SCC 768 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law regarding discharging an accused as under in paragraph 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) 6. Certainly the grounds taken by the petitioner that he was not in a position to gratify the complainant or for that matter he was not present on the relevant day at the place of occurrence are the defence which cannot be used to persuade the Court to discharge the petitioner. 7. Keeping in view the direct nature of evidence against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is sufficient material in the record to frame charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. 7. Keeping in view the direct nature of evidence against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is sufficient material in the record to frame charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition being without any merit is dismissed.