- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant revision application for setting aside the order dated 2.2.2011 whereby the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has rejected the petition of discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has not brought on record the alleged application of the informant filed before District Mining Officer, Dhanbad for mining lease for crushing stones which is the main genesis of this prosecution and for want of this document the entire prosecution should have been dropped. It has further contended that the prosecution has not brought on record any chit of paper to show that actually any matter of the informant regarding mining lease was pending before the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad. .
(3.) SECONDLY , Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner is not the competent person to grant the lease to the complainant. Furthermore, he has contended that there is an enmity between the complainant and the present petitioner. Lastly, he has argued that there is a contradiction in the allegation made by the complainant as such, in one place he has stated about the demand of Rs. 2,000/(two thousand) but in another place, before the Verifying Officer he has stated about a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - (fifteen thousand) which he has already paid' to the present petitioner.;