ORDER : 1. Both the petitioners above named are accused in Sessions Case No. 1/2017 arising out of FIR No. 321/2014 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Sriganganagar. The petitioners are aggrieved by refusal of their prayer, by the learned trial Judge, to discharge them by order 9.02.2018 and framing of charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent no. 2 Kashi Ram filed a complaint before ACB, Sriganganagar stating therein that respondent no. 2/complainant was a driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding and punishment was to be awarded against him by the Chief Manager of the Department where proceeding was pending. The complainant appeared before the Chief Manager Sukhram Kadwasara (co-accused). Petitioner Om Prakash was a Lower Division Clerk working in the office of General Manager. The complainant met Om Prakash, who after going through the records of the departmental proceedings talked to the Chief Manager and informed to the complainant that if the complainant pays Rs.22,000/-, lessor punishment would be awarded in the departmental proceeding otherwise there is chances of dismissal. 3. Since the complainant was not agreeable to bribe the public servants, he made a complaint on 11.9.2014 to the DSP of ACB Bikaner. A primary inquiry of such demand was made and on 12.9.2014 trap was arranged. The officials reached the office of petitioner Om Prakash. The planted money of Rs.22,000/- in different denomination was presented to Om Prakash in his office and Om Prakash directed the complainant to pay it to petitioner Anil Kumar, who was also a lower division clerk newly recruited and was sitting by the side of the table of Om Prakash. Money was received by petitioner Anil and Anil put it in his pocket. The authorities arrested Anil and Om Prakash at the spot. Petitioner Anil stated that he had received the money on the instruction of Om Prakash available there and he is not aware for what purpose money was given. He further stated that no work of the complainant was pending with him. During investigation, evidence of trap witnesses was recorded and on completion of other formalities, charge sheet was submitted after sanction of the competent authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. He further stated that no work of the complainant was pending with him. During investigation, evidence of trap witnesses was recorded and on completion of other formalities, charge sheet was submitted after sanction of the competent authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. HS Sidhu submits that the order of charge has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind on the material available on record. It is complainant’s case, which would be evident from the charge sheet that first he met Mr. Sukhram, the General Manager before whom the matter was pending. Mr. Sukhram threatened to dismiss him. Thereafter, Mr. Sukhram called Om Prakash and asked the complainant to go out. After some time, Om Prakash came out and put the demand before the complainant. Therefore, no work of the complainant was pending before petitioner Om Prakash or petitioner Anil. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance of judgment on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutt Vs. State (Government of NCT, Delhi), decided on 17.3.2023, after answer of the reference by the Constitution Bench in the same matter. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that a raving inquiry is not permissible at this stage nor evidentiary value can be weighed. Since demand was made by petitioner Om Prakash and he accepted the bribe money through petitioner Anil with intent to assist another public servant before whom work of the complainant was pending, the order of charge need not be interfered with. 6. It is settled law that at the stage of charge, the Court has to see whether prima facie offences are made out whereunder charges are to be framed. To examine this fact, only prosecution material collected during investigation is to be looked into and not the material placed by the defence. If the prosecution material raises strong suspicion, the Court may not interfere with the charge. However, if the materials are insufficient to proceed with the trial, an order of discharge can be recorded without entering into on inquiry on the pros and cons of the prosecution evidence. 7. The prosecution evidence on the record goes to show that petitioner Anil Kumar had no knowledge as to for what purpose the money was paid to him at the request of petitioner Om Prakash; where Om Prakash was also present. 7. The prosecution evidence on the record goes to show that petitioner Anil Kumar had no knowledge as to for what purpose the money was paid to him at the request of petitioner Om Prakash; where Om Prakash was also present. There is no evidence that petitioner Anil has ever demanded or accepted the recovered money as gratification nor there is any evidence that Anil was anyhow related to the pending file of the complainant with the Chief Manager. In Neeraj Dutt’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated as follows:- “26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the Accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI MANU/SC/0274/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1] and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., MANU/SC/0245/2014 : (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri.) 543] In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.” 8. Evidently, the only material against Anil is that the trap money was recovered from his possession and that is not enough to prove the charges levelled against Anil in absence of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance of illegal gratification. The word 'gratification' implies nexus between demand and acceptance with some public duty to be performed by the public servant himself or through any other public servant. In absence of demand mere recovery would not suffice to attract the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The word 'gratification' implies nexus between demand and acceptance with some public duty to be performed by the public servant himself or through any other public servant. In absence of demand mere recovery would not suffice to attract the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. So far charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned, the provisions of Section 120-A IPC, which defines criminal conspiracy and provisions of Section 120-B IPC which prescribes for punishment for criminal conspiracy requires to be relooked, which are being reproduced below:- “120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy :- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy :- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 1 [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as afreosaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.” 9. The available material on the record and the impugned order does not reflect that how a charge of criminal conspiracy is made out against petitioner Anil in absence of agreement between two or more persons to do the referred act. In State of Kerala vs. P. Sugathan & Ors. reported in 2000 (8) 203, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in para 12 as follows:- “12. We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of inference. In State of Kerala vs. P. Sugathan & Ors. reported in 2000 (8) 203, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in para 12 as follows:- “12. We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of inference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of purpose in common between the conspirators. This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between the two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.13. In Kehar Singh v. State, it was noticed that Section 120 A and Section 120 B IPC have brought the Law of Conspiracy in India in line with English Law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not to be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whether any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code." 10. Prior to that in Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883 , the requirement to invoke charge under Section 120-B IPC was stated as follows:- “….The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough.” 11. Again in Yogesh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2008 SC 2991 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the core principles of law of conspiracy in the following words:- “23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.” 12. Evidently, there is lack of evidence against petitioner Anil that he was in conspiracy with any of the co-accused or had consciously acted in accepting the money from the complainant at the time of trap knowing it to be money of bribe. Therefore, ingredients of none of the offences charged against Anil Kumar is made out, rather, the charges appears to be groundless. Hence, the impugned order to the extent of any of charges against Anil Kumar stands hereby set aside and petitioner Anil Kumar is discharged outright. 13. Accordingly, criminal revision no. 509/2018 stands allowed. 14. So far petitioner Om Prakash is concerned, there is prima facie material to support that he had demanded Rs.22,000/- to ensure favour from another public servant in the matter of grant of punishment in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, prima facie offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out as he had put demand and accepted bribe money through Anil as gratification for another public servant before whom the departmental proceeding was pending to show undue favour. Since co-accused Sukhram, the General Manager, before whom the departmental proceeding was pending had asked for calling Om Prakash and he talked with Om Prakash and thereafter, Om Praksh came out of his chamber and put the demand before the complainant, goes to show that there was some meeting of mind between the two to do unlawful act. Therefore, charge under Section 120-B is also prima facie made out. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan vide S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2023 decided on 16.5.2023. The said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Jitendra Singh’s case, the complainant went to the house of co-accused Rakesh Sharma to deliver illegal gratification. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan vide S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2023 decided on 16.5.2023. The said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Jitendra Singh’s case, the complainant went to the house of co-accused Rakesh Sharma to deliver illegal gratification. Rakesh asked his servant to accompany the complainant to Rajshree Grocery Shop and to deliver the same to one Mahendra Singh, where money was delivered. It surfaced in the evidence that from the said grocery shop Rakesh Sharma was purchasing items and on periodical basis payments of the due amount was being made. Petitioner Jitendra Singh who was son of Mahendra Singh was not named in the FIR. Therefore, facts of that case were quite different wherein prayer for discharge was allowed. 16. The petitioner further put reliance on S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 281/2023, Mahendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided by this Court on 28.8.2024. In that case, the sanction of pending bill and disbursement of bill amount was already made to the complainant prior to making of the complaint or putting of any trap, therefore, this Court held that since no work was pending with accused/petitioner Mahendra Kumar Soni on the date of trap relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Suber Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009(6) SCC 507, this Court set aside the order of the charge. In the case on hand, there is direct material against petitioner Om Prakash that he was indulged in demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant for ensuring help in award of lessor punishment in departmental proceedings, the offences alleged are prima facie made out against Om Prakash. Hence, the impugned order against Om Prakash stands hereby affirmed and criminal revision petition no. 250/2018 stands hereby dismissed.