ORDER : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the trial against the petitioner in Session Case No. 07/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Soni and Anr.) being conducted by the Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner, may kindly be ordered to be quashed." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 252/2015 dated 14.09.2015 came to be lodged by one Vinod Kumar Kumawat at Police Chowki A.C.B (Special Unit), Police Station C.P.S., A.C.B., Jaipur alleging inter-alia that he had completed some work relating to installation of high mast lights at various locations in Bikaner city, pursuant to the work order issued by the UIT, Bikaner. In the FIR, it was further alleged that one Lal Chand Soni who was working as an Accountant in UIT, Bikaner had demanded a commission of 4% of the total bill amount as bribe, in order to clear his pending bills. 3. The petitioner-Mohammed Ashik is a private person to whom on being asked by Shri. Lal Chand Soni, the bribe amount was allegedly handed over. As per the prosecution, the bribe amount was recovered from the petitioner on 18.09.2015. The petitioner is presently facing trial before the court of learned Session Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner, for commission of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as P.C. Act) and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as IPC). The charges against the petitioner for offences punishable under the aforesaid sections have been framed vide order dated 25.10.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is neither a public servant nor a person in any authority to act on behalf of Lal Chand Soni. The petitioner does not even know Lal Chand Soni and therefore, there was no question of he taking alleged bribe on his behalf. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is neither a public servant nor a person in any authority to act on behalf of Lal Chand Soni. The petitioner does not even know Lal Chand Soni and therefore, there was no question of he taking alleged bribe on his behalf. 5. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Chand Soni v. State through PP (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1071/2021), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order of the revisional court dated 28.03.2023, the order dated 25.10.2021 of framing of charges against Lal Chand Soni, passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Session Case bearing No. 7/2016 has been quashed and set-aside. Lal Chand Soni has been discharged for the alleged offences against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Chand Soni (supra) has already attained finality as the State Government decided not to prefer an SLP, challenging the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner has been charged for the offences under Section 7 P.C. Act read with Section 120B IPC and 120-B IPC simplicitor. However, the charges against the public servant Lal Chand Soni were ordered to be framed for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being a private person cannot be charged for the offences punishable under Section 7 P.C. Act. Further, once the charge-sheet against one of the charge-sheeted accused persons namely Lal Chand Soni, who had allegedly conspired with the petitioner to commit an illegal act, has been set aside by this Court, then the petitioner in no circumstance could be tried for an offence under Section 120B IPC. There cannot be said to be an iota of evidence on record now left against the petitioner in order to prosecute him and hold trial against him for the offences charged. 7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that prior to filing of the present criminal misc. There cannot be said to be an iota of evidence on record now left against the petitioner in order to prosecute him and hold trial against him for the offences charged. 7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that prior to filing of the present criminal misc. petition, the petitioner preferred a revision petition bearing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 704/2022 (Mohammed Ashik v. State of Rajasthan) before this Court. The revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed by this Court. However, a liberty was given to the petitioner to raise all his objections and grounds before the trial court at an appropriate stage. The petitioner thereupon, filed an application dated 23.05.2023 before the learned trial court to drop the criminal proceedings in the trial of Session Case No. 07/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Soni & Anr.) being conducted against him. However, learned trial court vide order 31.05.2023 rejected the prayers made by the petitioners in the application dated 23.05.2023. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is having no option except to request this Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him pending before the learned trial court by exercising powers vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that trap proceedings were conducted on 18.09.2015. The bribe amount which was to be paid to Shri. Lal Chand Soni, as "illegal gratification" has been recovered from the petitioner. The telephonic conversations between the complainant and accused persons are available on record, indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a fit case where the trial against the petitioner pending before the learned trial court should be interfered with particularly when the charges have already been framed against the petitioner. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor however, was not in a position to refute the fact that the discharge order dated 28.03.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Lal Chand Soni (supra) has already attained finality. The order dated 28.03.2023 has not been challenged by the State of Rajasthan by way of filing SLP before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 12. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:- "7. The order dated 28.03.2023 has not been challenged by the State of Rajasthan by way of filing SLP before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 12. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:- "7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with the imprisonment which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine." 13. Sections 120A and Section120B of the Indian Penal Code read as under:- "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 is pursuance thereof. Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object." "120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy:- 1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years of upward, 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 to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years of upward, 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 aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. It will, therefore, emanate by a simple perusal of a definition of conspiracy that there should be an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act which is per se not illegal but done by using illegal means, thus, there should be mutual consent for evil design to commit a crime between two or more persons." 14. Upon a careful consideration of material available on record and upon a scrutiny of the applicable law, it is apparent that the petitioner is not covered by the definition of "public servant" given under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. The petitioner at the time of alleged recovery of the bribe amount was neither a public servant nor he was authorized to act on behalf of Shri. Lal Chand Soni. The petitioner thus, was not in a position to demand the bribe for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The petitioner was also not in a position to favour or disfavour any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. 15. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act in his individual capacity. As far as Section 120B of IPC is concerned, the charge of conspiracy can only survive when there are two or more persons. As noticed above, in the present case, charge-sheet for offences under Section 120-B was filed against the petitioner and one Lal Chand Soni, who has been discharged by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023. The petitioner could never be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy when the other person has been discharged from the offences under Section 120B IPC. The petitioner could never be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy when the other person has been discharged from the offences under Section 120B IPC. The definition of criminal conspiracy as provided under Section 120A of IPC is very clear that there ought to be two or more persons, who must have agreed to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is, not illegal by illegal means, and only such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. It is trite to say that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself. 16. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, to secure the ends of justice, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the present petitioner in Sessions Case No.07/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Soni & Anr.), pending before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner, stand quashed and are set aside qua the petitioner. 17. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.