ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 13.06.2019 passed in Special (Lokayuktha) No.5/2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere and discharge the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the PC Act). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent police have registered the case against the petitioner herein alleging in the charge sheet that the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/-as bribe for the work of the complainant and in respect of the demand is concerned, the conversation between the complainant and the accused has been recorded in the voice recorder. The respondent-Police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein has also filed an application under Section 227 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for an order of discharge, wherein the specific contention taken before the Trial Court for discharge is that the material collected by the respondent-Police would not suffice to proceed against the petitioner and hence, he may be discharged. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence of the witness who spoke about the demand of bribe cannot be believed unless the same is corroborated with the evidence of independent witnesses. The accused has not received any amount from the complainant and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not in accordance with law and the same is incomplete. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in order to proceed against the petitioner, the respondent-Police have not collected any material except the three voice recorders and the same also not substantiates the fact of any demand being made and acceptance on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the Trial Judge has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant who has been examined before the Lokayuktha while conducting the departmental inquiry has not supported the case and he was treated hostile and cross-examined, which has to be taken note of while discharging the accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant who has been examined before the Lokayuktha while conducting the departmental inquiry has not supported the case and he was treated hostile and cross-examined, which has to be taken note of while discharging the accused. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently contend that there is a demand by the accused and the same has been recorded. The voice recorder is also placed along with the charge sheet. Apart from that, the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is also produced before the Trial Court. Learned Trial Judge while rejecting the application has assigned the reasons that sufficient materials are placed before the Court and it is a matter of trial. Insofar as the genuineness of the voice recorder and also the validity of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, it could be ascertained only after conducting the trial and not at the stage of discharge. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and so also on perusal of the charge sheet material, the police have filed the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. While filing the charge sheet, the police have placed the voice recorder and also the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court while considering the grounds urged for discharge of the accused, has taken note of the fact that there was a demand and the witness has to substantiate the same during the course of the trial. The contention of the petitioner that certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not complied, cannot be accepted as the Trial Court while rejecting the application has come to the conclusion that the same has to be considered after the trial. 8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the voice recorder does not discloses the demand, learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the conversation which had taken place between the complainant and the accused, wherein the demand was made and the same has been translated in the mahazar. 8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the voice recorder does not discloses the demand, learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the conversation which had taken place between the complainant and the accused, wherein the demand was made and the same has been translated in the mahazar. Insofar as the demand is concerned, the same has to be ascertained during the course of the trial. 9. Learned counsel would contend that the material does not disclose any demand and the same may construed to be a defence before the Trial Court. The Court has to ascertain whether the material available before the Court is enough to proceed against the accused. If there is no material as such, then the Court has to invoke Section 227 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. When the material is placed before the Court, particularly with regard to demand, and the offence invoked against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act is only with regard to the ingredients of the offence of the demand, the same has to be proved by examining the witness. 10. In order to discharge the accused, the Court has to look into the material whether the same would be sufficient or not. If no materials are placed then the Court has to invoke Section 227 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the order impugned, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no material to proceed against the petitioner herein. Hence, the matter requires trial. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court in dismissing the discharge application. 11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:- ORDER The petition is hereby rejected. In view of the rejection of the main petition, I.A.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.