ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. Instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-accused aggrieved from order dated 17.07.2023 in Criminal Case No. 22/2022 arising out of FIR No. 225/2021 P.S. ACB, Jaipur wherein, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against Ravi Meena and Amit Sharma under Section 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended) Act, 2018 and directed for further investigation. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submitted that after receipt of complaint for demand and also verification of the same a case was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred as ACB) but after investigation a negative final report (closure report) was submitted by the ACB, wherein nothing was found against petitioner. He further submitted that during pendency of this final closure report, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 7-A and 8 without considering that there was no prosecution sanction to prosecute present petitioner. He also submitted that the Trial Court was impressed upon that no cognizance can be possible in wake of the bar under Section 19 of P.C. Act but while passing the order dated 17.07.2023, it has ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of P.C. Act. He also submitted that as per facts narrated in the complaint the case under Section 7(c) was considered by the ACB before closing the investigation but herein the Trial Court has not considered that for the prosecution of any public servant, a prosecution sanction is required, therefore, in absence of a prosecution sanction, the order of cognizance is bad in eye of law. He submitted that not enough material was available on record to take cognizance against the petitioner, therefore, the order of cognizance against the petitioner was bad in the eyes of law. He also submitted that in same order, cognizance was taken and further investigation was also ordered, which is contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel further submitted a written submission wherein also, he referred to the duty of the Magistrate before taking cognizance in any matter. He specifically referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 705 , L. Narayan Swami Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 598 , State through CBI Vs. Hemendra Reddy & Anr. 2023 SCC Online SC 515 in support of his contentions. He specifically referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 705 , L. Narayan Swami Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 598 , State through CBI Vs. Hemendra Reddy & Anr. 2023 SCC Online SC 515 in support of his contentions. He also referred Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala Ram (1978) 4 SCC 58 , Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC Online SC 1140, State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) 3 SCC 659 on the point of cognizance by the Court below. He also referred to the judgment in cases of Shashikant Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 565/2022, Nimba Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5514/2021, Hari Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3532/2016, Brijesh Mangal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2409/2019 and Tejvir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1703/2017 in support of his contentions. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He also submitted that on the basis of material available on record, the Trial Court was competent to take cognizance in the instant matter. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, perused the material available on record, also considered the written submissions and perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court. 6. A perusal of the record indicates that the Trial Court on the basis of material on record has proceed to take cognizance against present petitioner under Section 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Trial Court after noticing a detailed conversation on basis of the transcript concluded that Rs.3,00,000/- was meant to be delivered to Prateek Jhajaria. In the instant case, the Trial Court has noticed several facts in the order against Prateek Jhajaria and R.C. Meena and forwarded against them for further investigation. Several issues were raised by learned counsel for petitioner including negative FR, the minute details of investigation and absence of prosecution sanction. 7. We have considered all these issues in light of the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. Several issues were raised by learned counsel for petitioner including negative FR, the minute details of investigation and absence of prosecution sanction. 7. We have considered all these issues in light of the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. For sake of brevity, we are not referring each judgment in detail, but we have gone through the material placed before us, including the judgments. 8. In cases of Bhushan Kumar & Anr vs State(Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. 2012 (5) SCC 424 , Nupur Talwar vs CBI & Anr AIR 2012 SC 291 , Kanti Bhadra Shah And Anr vs State Of West Bengal 2000 (1) SCC 722 , Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the requirement before taking cognizance has observed that at the stage of cognizance detailed reasons are not required. 9. In case of M/s GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s India Infoline Limited AIR 2013 SC 1433 and Sunil Bharti Mittal vs CBI AIR 2015 SC 923 (Three Judge Bench), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order of cognizance must reflect application of mind, though detailed reasons are not required. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred the judgment in case of State through CBI Vs. Hemendra Reddy & Anr. (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the options available with the Court. Herein, this case, the cognizance was taken against the present petitioner and Amit Sharma but further investigation was ordered against Prateek Jhajaria and R.C. Meena, therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the instant case. Similarly, as regard to prosecution sanction is concerned, learned Trial Court has considered the issue in detail in light of Section 7-A and 8 of the Amended Act and thereafter taken cognizance. Therefore, this issue can be raised at the time of arguments on charge. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the instant case. 11. In the case of Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. (supra), L. Narayan Swami Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) and State through CBI Vs. Hemendra Reddy & Anr. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered Section 19 of the P.C. Act and held that it is mandatory to procure prosecution sanction before taking cognizance against a public servant. In the case of Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. (supra), L. Narayan Swami Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) and State through CBI Vs. Hemendra Reddy & Anr. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered Section 19 of the P.C. Act and held that it is mandatory to procure prosecution sanction before taking cognizance against a public servant. In the instant case, main accused is Prateek Jhajaria but the prosecution sanction was denied against him and the Trial Court has directed further investigation after considering the material on record. 12. In the case of Nimba Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Hari Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the issue based on facts of the particular case and same cannot be applied as a matter of general principle in the instant case. The domain of the Trial Court to apply its own mind after thoughtful consideration on final closure report is well recognized under the law and the same was upheld in catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the contention that the Trial Court has committed serious error while taking cognizance, cannot be accepted in toto. One cannot presume that the closure report forwarded by the Investigating Agency means that the matter has been closed forever. The principle of judicial review and judicial scrutiny is well recognized in a system like ours, therefore, the contention and the judgments as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable in the instant case as the impugned order is well reasoned and the well considered by the Trial Court. 13. In case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (2022) SCC Online 1724, constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines after considering several judgments on the P.C. Act and legal provisions:- (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) and(ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1) (d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1) (d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made 68 by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. 14. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. 14. Aforesaid guidelines make it clear that the factum of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof is a subject of trial, therefore, at the stage of cognizance we cannot consider that there was no demand and no acceptance. Thus, in view of enlargement of scope to prove the aforesaid fact, the specific argument is not tenable. A perusal of aforesaid judgment in case of Nupur Talwar (supra) clearly laid down that a Magistrate is competent to take cognizance on final report and he need not give detailed reasons for taking cognizance. It means that mere forwarding of final closure report does not give a right to any person that now the Court cannot proceed further either taking cognizance or further investigation. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 210 has considered issue relating to PC Act and wherein a revision petition was allowed by this Court but Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of discharge, therefore, at the stage of cognizance it is not possible to go beyond prima facie case. 16. In view of aforesaid, the judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the instant case., therefore the Trial Court has not committed any error while taking cognizance. 17. Therefore, this revision petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.