ORDER : 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Sriganganagar whereby, the trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 265/2019 came to be registered by P.S. ACB, Jaipur against the petitioner and co- accused Ramswaroop for offence under Sections 7, 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC on the basis of complaint made by complainant Arvind Kumar. It was alleged that the co- accused Ramswaroop had demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- on behalf of petitioner for passing the tender under Bus Saarthi Yojana. After verification, the ACB laid a trap on 30.08.2019 and during the trap proceedings, the co-accused Ramswaroop was caught red handed. During investigation, the petitioner was also arrested. After investigation, the ACB submitted chargesheet against the petitioner under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act & 120B IPC. Thereafter, arguments upon charge were heard and by way of impugned order dated 17.11.2022, charges were framed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of FIR as well as the challan papers, there is no evidence whatsoever to frame charges against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. It is argued that neither any demand was made by the petitioner nor there is any allegation against the present petitioner. The petitioner was working as Chief Manager of RSRTC and he has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused with the aid of Section 120B IPC. It is argued that there is no call-recording of any conversation between the petitioner and the complainant, therefore, there was no question of accepting any illegal gratification. It is argued that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the impugned order framing charges is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2023) decided on 16.05.2023 and Anil Kumar vs. State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 509/2018) decided on 09.09.2024. 4. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2023) decided on 16.05.2023 and Anil Kumar vs. State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 509/2018) decided on 09.09.2024. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and argued that the police after thorough investigation submitted challan against the petitioner and the trial court after going through the entire record, has framed charges against the petitioner. It is argued that there is allegation against the present petitioner for receiving money from the complainant through co-accused Ramswaroop, which is evident from the transcript, therefore, the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The petitioner had earlier filed criminal misc. petition before this Court for quashing of FIR. The said misc petition has already been dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2020 with liberty to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage of trial. 5. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the material on record, more particularly, the transcript of conversation, it is clear that petitioner before whom the work was pending, demanded the bribe money through the co-accused Ramswaroop. 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. After perusing the documents and studying the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offences mentioned above. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court only has to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. At this stage, the Court only has to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. 7. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below : "(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the state of Sections 227 & 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal." 8. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, AIR 2017 SC 796 , while dealing with the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C when the charge had been framed, has held as under:- “26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the Accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the Accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 27. Now, reverting to the limit of the scope of jurisdiction Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, which vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. ............... 29. The Court in para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 particularly in context of quashing of charge framed Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure Para 27, 27(1), (2), (3), (9), (13) are extracted as follows: “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court Under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the Rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 30. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 30. Applying the above tests, we are of the considered opinion that High Court erred in quashing the charges framed by the order dated 05.05.2009. In result, both the appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the order dated 05.05.2009 is restored. The learned Special Judge may proceed with the trial in accordance with the law expeditiously.” 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawna Bai Vs.Ghanshyam & Ors., 2020 Cr. L.R. (SC) 5, while considering the judgment rendered in the case of Amit Kapoor (Supra) dealing with the scope of interference when the charges had been framed, held as under :- “16. As discussed above, in the present case, upon hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the Accused has committed the offence punishable Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The order dated 12.12.2018 framing the charges is not a detailed order. For framing the charges Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. As held in Knati Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722 , while exercising power Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge is not required record his reasons for framing the charges against the Accused. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused and framed the charges against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the Accused- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the Accused- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and the High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the charges framed against the Accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in Criminal Revision No. 402 of 2019 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Sessions Trial Case No. ST/150/2018 is restored and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar, West Nimad, Madhya Pradesh shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.” 11. Thus, at the stage of framing charge for an offence against an accused only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings evidence is not required to be analyzed, as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. Moreover, the impugned order framing charges was passed on 17.12.2022 and till now, nine prosecution witnesses out of fourteen witnesses have already been examined. So far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), the co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that, prima facie, the elements of none of the offenses charged were established. However, in the present case, a prima facie case is indeed made out. In the case of Mahendra Kumar Soni (supra), it was observed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court that the recovery of money in the trap does not meet the requirement of gratification unless the money was being paid for the discharge of an official duty pending before the accused. In the present case, however, work was indeed pending before the petitioner, and co- accused Ramswaroop demanded money from the complainant. In the present case, however, work was indeed pending before the petitioner, and co- accused Ramswaroop demanded money from the complainant. In the case of Jitender Singh (supra), it was observed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court that there was no evidence on record to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner, which is not the case in hand. 12. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC. 13. The revision thus being bereft of any force, is hereby rejected. The stay petition also stands rejected.