Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Vigilance.

2. These Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the order, dated 14.08.2014, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, in Special Case No. 01 of 2006 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 5 of 2006.

3. The petitioners of both the criminal revisions are made accused in the said case. The petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 826 of 2014 (Shri Chandra Mohan Choudhary) was working as the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, and petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 834 of 2014 (Shri Mundrika Choudhary) was working as the Director, District Rural Development Authority, Supaul, at the relevant time of lodging the first information report.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the prosecution, the informant’s allegation was that the Office Clerk of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, was demanding Rs.1,000/- per house for allotment of work to his Panchayat for construction of houses under Indira Awas Yojna and according to him total 339 beneficiaries of Chhatarpur Panchayat were forwarded to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, for recommendation of sanction. It is the allegation of the informant that total Rs.3,39,000/-, at the rate of Rs.1000/- per house, was demanded as bribe. His allegation was that as he did not pay the bribe, the said amount was not sanctioned to the Panchayat under Indira Awas Yojna. In this regard, Vigilance has firstly verified the allegation of the complaint, verification report was prepared confirming the allegation to be true, raiding party was organized by the Vigilance officials, pre-trap memorandum was prepared by the In-Charge of the raiding party and subsequently the raid was conducted in the office of the District Rural Development Authority, Supaul on 28.01.2006. The accused was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs.35,000/- which was recovered from his right pocket of full-pant, in addition to that Rs.5180/- was recovered from left pocket of his shirt, from the different almirahs of the District Rural Development Authority, Supaul, Rs.9,11,378.70 was also seized. One Bachneshwar Jha and Prabhaker Lal Das were arrested for keeping the illegal money received as illegal gratification.

5. By virtue of statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused, namely, Bachneshwar Jha, the name of present petitioners have figured in this case. The petitioners were arrested, thereafter they remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2006. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been submitted in this case and cognizance was taken. The case was put on trial upon which, prior to framing of charge, two applications under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been filed which were allowed in favour of the petitioners and petitioners were discharged. Subsequently, the Vigilance being aggrieved from the said discharge order has preferred a Cr. Misc. No. 22023 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court which was decided by order, dated 31.07.2013 and by the said order the discharge order of the petitioners, dated 11.02.2020, has been set aside and the matter was remanded back to consider afresh with reasoning.

6. Thereafter, the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, has passed fresh order on 14.08.2014, in compliance of order, dated 31.07.2013 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 22023 of 2011. This time the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, has granted ample opportunity to petitioner of both the cases as well as the Special Public Prosecutor and discussed all the materials for the purpose of consideration of the discharge petition. Thereafter, petitions for discharge of the petitioners, dated 26.02.2014 and 17.02.2014 were rejected on 14.08.2014 and petitioners were directed to remain present in the Court physically on 04.09.2014 for framing of charge.

7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of refusal of discharge dated