JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.06.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No. 11 of 2010 by which the learned court below has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of the said case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the brief facts of the case is that the complainant-Ram Chandra Yadav submitted his complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance alleging therein that the petitioner has asked for a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- in cash for appointment of the complainant as a Para Teacher but later on the petitioner agreed to receive a bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/-. A trap team was constituted and the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount. Charge sheet has been submitted and the trial is going on at present. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and as the petitioner is posted as a Block Resource Person and his own appointment was on contractual basis, therefore he was not empowered to make any sort of appointment. Hence, there is no occasion for the petitioner to demand or accept any bribe amount from the complainant and as the very genesis of the occurrence is false, the impugned order by which the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is illegal. Hence, it is submitted that the same be quashed. 4. Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (Vigilance) on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner demanded bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant, accepted the said amount and the said money was recovered from the custody of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (Vigilance) on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner demanded bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant, accepted the said amount and the said money was recovered from the custody of the petitioner. So there is ample 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 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that the grounds taken by the petitioner for quashing of the cognizance 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. It is next submitted by Mr. Verma that since this is a year old case, the trial court be directed to expedite the trial and this criminal miscellaneous petition 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. 5,000/-. It is a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance, it is not open for the trial court to consider the defence of the petitioner nor the same was agitated before the trial court. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 6. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 7. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.