M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this criminal revision petition, challenge is made to the order dated 16.5.2011 framing charges. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without giving an opportunity, charges have been framed for offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120B IPC. It is even ignoring the fact that petitioner in no way in picture for demand of bribe. If, at all, somebody is involved then it may be Shahjad and not the petitioner. At the instance of petitioner, Shahjad cannot accept bribe and, otherwise, prosecution could not produce any evidence to implicate petitioner for the crime. Telephone record has not been produced which was the only evidence to connect petitioner with crime, accordingly, petitioner may be discharged of the charges framed against him.
(2.) LEARNED PP, on the other hand, supported the order framing charges against the petitioner. It is stated that allegation of bribe was made by the complainant and it was demanded by the petitioner through Shahjad thus looking to the material aforesaid, charged have been framed. Accordingly, interference may not be made. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that Annexure -3 dated 16.5.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner which is drawn by the court below referring to various charges for which matter was under its cognizance. The order was passed for framing of charges for offence under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under IPC. The statement of the accused was called, who denied the charges and claimed trial, which was granted. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. So far as issue in respect of facts are concerned, court below perused the case and finding the evidence against the petitioner, framed charges. At this stage, facts on merit cannot be looked into to draw a final conclusion regarding involvement of the petitioner. Looking to the material on record, it has come that petitioner demanded bribe through Shahjad which was then reported to the Anti Corruption Bureau and trap was organised. After arrangements, trap was conducted. Therein, cassette was prepared to transcribe conversation between two persons and others also. Looking to the over all circumstances and material on record, I find that, prima facie, case is made out against the petitioner thus interference in the impugned order is not called for. I am not deliberately commenting further in regard to the facts to show involvement of the petitioner in the matter as it may ultimately affect petitioner in trial. In view of the above, I am not interfering in the impugned order. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.;