JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner is aggrieved by framing of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 coupled with Section 120B of IPC by the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Session Case No.20/2015 (19/2008). 2. The aforesaid Session Case arises out of FIR No.175/2006 registered on 26.06.2006 with ACB Pali/CPS, Jaipur for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution case is that on the relevant date i.e. 19.06.2006, the petitioner was posted as Manager at Jaitaran Kraya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti. Complainant-Babu Lal Gehlot had performed some contractual work of the Samiti and out of the total bill of Rs.3,87,571/-, Rs.2,30,000/- was already paid to him. Rs.1,37,571/- was still due and for release of that pending money, the petitioner was demanding Rs.70,000/- as bribe. After being harassed for several rounds to get the aforesaid amount released, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- as final settlement. This incident took place on 19.06.2006. 3. On the same day, the complainant made a complaint to the Dy. S.P. of Anti Corruption Bureau, who verified the allegation. Conversations were recorded and the trap was arranged on 21.06.2006 for the reason that the complainant had sought for time from the petitioner to arrange the money. When the trap team reached the Office of the petitioner, the petitioner asked Mr. Babu Lal Gehlot to pay the money to Mr. Chola Ram, who was Accountant thereat. The petitioner further stated to Chola Ram to carry money to a relative of the petitioner. Chola Ram asked the complainant to put the money in the carry bag attached with the Motor Cycle and he proceeded. However, soon thereat, the ACB Team intercepted Chola Ram and criminal prosecution was lodged. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet. 4. The challenge, to the order of charge, is mainly on two grounds; first that sanction to prosecute is itself a defective one and second that offences alleged are not made out. 5. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajash Kumar Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 09.09.2024 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.307/2023. 6. Learned counsel for the State-respondent had drawn attention of the Court on the material on record to substantiate that first sanction to prosecute was granted on 24.07.2007. 5. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajash Kumar Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 09.09.2024 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.307/2023. 6. Learned counsel for the State-respondent had drawn attention of the Court on the material on record to substantiate that first sanction to prosecute was granted on 24.07.2007. The same was challenged on the ground of non-application of mind in a civil writ petition before this Court. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2008 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh order according to the law. Thereafter, the Competent Authority again granted sanction on 18.03.2008 and accordingly cognizance was taken on 17.04.2008. However, the second sanction order dated 18.03.2008 was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.3682/2009, which was ultimately dismissed. 7. Since the sanction to prosecute was challenged on the ground of non-application of mind and not on the ground of lack of competency to grant sanction, therefore defense, if any, in application of mind can be available at the stage of trial. Only lack of competency to grant sanction with the authority concerned may give rise to interference at the initial stage, therefore order of charge cannot be faulted on the ground of defect in sanction specially when the writ petition challenging the order of sanction was already dismissed by this Court and the order has attained finality. 8. From the prosecution material, it is evident that there is allegation of demand of bribe against the petitioner and the evidence had been electronically preserved. There is material on the record to substantiate that work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner as the petitioner was to release the remaining pending bill and the petitioner had also allured the complainant to get his another case settled. Thirdly, there is evidence of acceptance of demanded bribe by the petitioner via Chola Ram. It would be subject matter of trial whether only direct acceptance would constitute the offence or acceptance may be made through some other person including any family member. 9. The relevant provisions whereunder charges have been ordered to be framed are being reproduced below:- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as prevailing on the date of incident and prior to amendment w.e.f. 26.07.2018 reads as follows:- “7. 9. The relevant provisions whereunder charges have been ordered to be framed are being reproduced below:- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as prevailing on the date of incident and prior to amendment w.e.f. 26.07.2018 reads as follows:- “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.-- Any public servant who,- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an ude advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration.- A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration car application on time. ‘S’ is guilty of an offence under this section. Illustration.- A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration car application on time. ‘S’ is guilty of an offence under this section. Explanation 2.- For the purpose of this section,- (i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.] Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as prevailing on the date of offence reads as follows:- 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,— (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if he,— (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 3[four years] but which may extend to 4[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.” In A. Subair Vs. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 3[four years] but which may extend to 4[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.” In A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to secure order of conviction of offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, the prosecution has to establish following ingredients:- “1. Demand and acceptance of bribe money. 2. Handling of tainted money by the accused on the day of trap (colour test). 3. Work of complainant must be pending as on the date of trap with the accused.” 10. Evidently, ingredients of offences alleged are prima facie made out against the petitioner to ask the petitioner to face trial. The case of Rajesh Kumar Meel (supra) was on different footing wherein the complainant stated before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that due to some other dispute with Mr. Meel, who was relative of the complainant, he has lodged the case and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner. Therefore, on the date of challenge of charge, there was no material on actual demand by the petitioner of that case. There was no evidence that any work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner or in the department of petitioner on the date of making of allegation or on the date of effecting trap. There was no evidence that the petitioner had accepted the bribe money as the money was paid to some other person not at the dictate of the petitioner. Therefore, Rajesh Kumar Meel (supra) case is not helping the petitioner in the facts and circumstance of this case. 11. Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as follows:- “120 A. 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. Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. 12. There is evidence on the record that the petitioner had confidence on co-accused Chola Ram and he used to accept money through Chola Ram as well as in the case on hand he had accepted money through Chola Ram, therefore the agreement between the two to do some illegal acts is prima facie there. 13. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal revision, hence the same is dismissed.