JUDGMENT : [Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.] 1. Instant petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1558 of 2021 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2015 (Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2015) under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereby and whereunder the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. The complaint lodged by one Krishna Mohan Kumar, is the basis of the case. As per the case of prosecution, he was a nominated supplier of boulder under MNREGA Scheme for construction of road and had submitted bill of Rs. 49,000/- before the petitioner for payment. It is alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 3500/- as 7% of total bill amount as illegal gratification for clearing the bill. 3. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and on verification, the allegation was found to be true and thereafter, after completing formalities, a trap team was constituted and the raid was conducted in the office of petitioner on 04.08.2015, who was posted as Block Development Officer. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Baranwas Tirkey and other members reached the office of B.D.O. at 11.00 A.M. The petitioner/accused accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 3500/- and he was caught red-handed with the phenolphthalein smeared currency notes regarding which vigilance case was registered. 4. Further, case of the prosecution is that a large mob was gathered from nearby places at the instance of one Computer Operator, Naushad. The mob forcibly entered into the chamber of the BDO, where the petitioner was detained and the items of seizure were destroyed and the petitioner was released from police custody. F.I.R. regarding the incidence was registered being Chanho P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 under Sections 143, 147, 150, 341, 342, 204, 201, 216, 225, 353, 427, 504, 505, 120B of the I.P.C. The police on investigation submitted final form in this case for want of evidence. 5. The Vigilance Department submitted its charge sheet No. 29 of 2017 on 26.09.2017 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. 5. The Vigilance Department submitted its charge sheet No. 29 of 2017 on 26.09.2017 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. After charge sheet, cognizance in this case was earlier taken on 07.11.2017 which was challenged before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2337 of 2017 and by order dated 25.11.2019, the matter was remanded back to the learned Court below for passing order afresh. 7. The learned Court below vide order dated 29.11.2019 took cognizance against the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner preferred a discharge petition before the Court below which has been rejected and aggrieved by the order, instant petition has been filed. 8. The order rejecting petition for discharge has been impugned on the ground that complainant had a personal grudge against the petitioner and the present case is an outcome of that. The complainant was working as supplier and broker in the said Block prior to posting of this petitioner and the order restricting entry of brokers, middle men and anti-social elements by the petitioner was the reason for filing of the present case. After assuming the charge of office of Block Development Officer, the petitioner had issued office order dated 13.03.2015 restricting the entry of the Panchayat Sewak and Rojgar Sewak in his official chamber. This order had adversely affected the complainant who had been intermeddling with the affairs of the Department. It was against this backdrop that the complainant Krishna Mohan Kumar lodged the complaint with the Vigilance Department on a manufactured and false charge. Without holding proper preliminary inquiry, the vigilance team conducted the raid in which envelop was thrown into the office of B.D.O. which the petitioner had neither demanded nor received. Against the highhandedness and attempted false implication of the petitioner in the vigilance case, local people gathered at their own. 9. The petitioner had lodged F.I.R. against the complainant being Chanho P.S. Case No. 81 of 2015 under Section 353 of the I.P.C. The police after investigation, submitted final form in this case on 30.11.2018 but the learned Court below on protest petition took cognizance under Sections 323, 506, 353 of the I.P.C. against the sole accused namely Krishna Mohan Kumar (O.P. No. 2). It is submitted that while in the police case which was lodged by Dy. S.P., Vigilance, the final form has been accepted, but in the case filed by this petitioner, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence. This is an acknowledgment of the defence version. 10. Superintendent of Police, Rural vide report dated 29.06.2018 also exonerates this petitioner. Government of Jharkhand also appointed Commissioner, Chhotanagpur to look into the matter and thereafter, Commissioner has submitted the report to Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel on 25.08.2015. The complicity in the offence of this petitioner was ruled out. It is submitted that the defence of the petitioner is based on unimpeachable documents which can be considered in view of the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 11. Learned counsel on behalf of State, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV has made two fold submission. Firstly, at the stage of framing of charge law is settled that the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to the grounds on which the proposed charge is being framed. This is not the stage where mini trial is to be held by entering into a detailed scrutiny into the probative value of the matter. 12. It is further argued that findings recorded by administrative authority which are beyond the materials collected during investigation cannot be looked into for passing any order at this stage. Reliance in this regard has been placed on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685 para 9, 24, 25. Rejection of discharge petition is under challenge before this Court. Scope of judicial scrutiny at this stage is well settled that at this stage the probative value of materials collected during investigation is not to be looked into. Rejection of discharge petition is under challenge before this Court. Scope of judicial scrutiny at this stage is well settled that at this stage the probative value of materials collected during investigation is not to be looked into. It has been held in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191 , whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the ratio decided in M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380] held, “It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence”. 13. The petitioner was a Block Development Officer and for the bills raised on work done under MNREGA scheme, it is alleged that he demanded his 7% commission from the complainant. The raid was conducted and he was caught red handed with cash by the trap team constituted by the Vigilance Department. Charge sheet has been submitted after investigation. 14. Matter for consideration is whether the plea of innocence and being falsely framed in the case can be considered at this stage, on the basis of the final form being submitted in the police case lodged by Dy S.P., for I.P.C. offence that a large mob had been gathered by his subordinate staffs to obstruct raiding party. 15. This is a case where two limbs of State police have arrived at their own conclusions which appear to be contradictory and not reconcilable. As per the investigation conducted by the State Vigilance Bureau, the accused had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The State Police in its investigation has found no concrete evidence in the incidence of the mob obstructing the raiding party and submitted closure report in the police case lodged by Dy. S.P. of Vigilance Department. It will be too premature to draw conclusion at this stage, as to which investigating agency stood for truth and which against it. The State Police in its investigation has found no concrete evidence in the incidence of the mob obstructing the raiding party and submitted closure report in the police case lodged by Dy. S.P. of Vigilance Department. It will be too premature to draw conclusion at this stage, as to which investigating agency stood for truth and which against it. Learned trial Court has rightly noted that defence evidence cannot be considered at this stage in the light of the ratio decided by the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein it has been held that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order needs no interference. 17. The instant Criminal Revision stands dismissed.