1. This criminal revision case is filed by the accused under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2012 in C.C.No.24 of 2010 passed by II Additional Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad, dated 18.06.2013, filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘P.C. Act’).

2. The petitioner being the sole accused filed Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2012 before the II Additional Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad under Section 239 Cr.P.C, alleging that, while the petitioner was discharging his official duties as Medical Superintendent of Railway Poly Clinic, accepted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration and as such he committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. The petitioner was served with the copies of the documents a required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and such documents and statements do not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner much less the offences alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. It is also contended that the charge sheet does not disclose any official favour that was pending with the petitioner as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and the statements of various witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the alleged offences committed by this petitioner.

3. It is also contended that, the material produced along with the charge-sheet itself shows that the act of alleged receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- is not in connection with his official duty and in the absence of any piece of paper, proceedings against this petitioner by framing charges under Section 238 Cr.P.C for various offences is nothing but subjecting this petitioner to harassment. It is also contended that, though the complainant did not submit the bills for the month of September, 2009, complained that he submitted such bills which turned out to be false and even the recommendation for extension of recognition was already done in the month of September, 2009, it is falsely alleged by the complainant that it is still pending with the petitioner for the purpose of implicating the petitioner in a false case. Therefore, based on false or concocted story created by the complainant, a charge-sheet is filed and requested to discharge this petitioner for the offences referred supra.

4. The respondent filed counter stating that, based on the written complaint received from Dr. Narasinga Reddy, MD Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda, for demanding Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner who was Medical Superintendent, Railway Polyclinic, Kazipet for clearing the pending bills of the Hospital from January 2009 to August 2009, also for accepting the bills for the month of September 2009 and for renewal of MOU between Railway Polyclinic, Kazipet and M/s Jaya Hospital, filed charge-sheet after completion of investigation in RC.16(A)/2009 under Section 7 of P.C Act, 1988,. In pursuance of the earlier demand, the petitioner/accused accepted Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe towards part payment from the complainant at the residence of the petitioner and was caught red-handed by C.B.I, the bribe amount was seized. The respondent/C.B.I has initiated action against the petitioner/accused after making thorough verification of the contents of the complaint and the investigation disclosed that there were 71 pending bills of Jaya Hospital Railway Polyclinic, Kazipet by 12.11.2009 which were not processed by the petitioner and this fact is evident from the statements of witnesses examined during the course of investigation, 71 pending bills were seized on the day of trap by C.B.I under cover of search list in the presence of independent witnesses, as such it can be inferred that, the petitioner has deliberately kept the medical bills pending without processing, only in order to get satisfied with illegal gratificat