ORDER :

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ajmer in Sessions Case No.19/2018 whereby an order framing charge has been passed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the sole count that the learned Court below has not applied its mind to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offences are present or not in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. It was contended that even assuming all that the prosecution say are true, the materials are insufficient to support a charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC. While proceeding the investigation in the matter, when the complainant went to the house of Mr. Rakesh Sharma to deliver the illegal gratification, he specifically called his servant and asked him to accompany the complainant to the Rajshree Grosery shop and deliver the same to one Mr. Mahendra Singh. Neither the name of the present petitioner does find mentioning in the FIR nor in the conversation regarding demand of illegal gratification his name has been mentioned. As per the case of the prosecution, it is admitted fact that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in this case merely because Mr. Rakesh Sharma used to buy groceries from his shop and he had opened a credit account there because he was permanent client of his shop, however, this fact alone is not sufficient to frame charge under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act. Merely acceptance of amount at the instructions of Mr. Rakesh Sharma, the recovery of the said amount does not add up to the fact that he was involved in the conpiracy. There are no materials to substantiate the charges levelled against him and merely by saying that there is a conspiracy, without any materials, will not relieve the prosecution from its liability to produce sufficient material to justify a trial under Section 120B of IPC. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order available on record does not reflect that the trial court considered the above-mentioned aspects, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside because the petitioner should not be forced to face the rigour of trial on groundless accusations.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has been able to show a prima facie case by bringing cogent, oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner. According to him the court below has not erred either in appreciating the facts or the law involved in the case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor and perused the entire material available on record.

5. Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption, Act is reproduced as under for ready reference-

“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any pe