At the stage of framing of charges, the evidence on record needs to be weighed for the limited purpose of determining whether the materials collected during the investigation are sufficient to frame charges against the accused.

( 1 ) SINCE both the revision applications arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Sant Lal Roy in Cr. Rev. No. 1024 of 2003 and the petitioner shashank Shekhar Singh in Cr. Rev. No. 1094 of 2003 have challenged the order dated 20-9-2003, passed by the Special judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case no. 14 of 2001, whereby the learned Special Judge (Vigilance)rejected the petition filed by them under Section 239 read with section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge of the petitioners from the said case.

( 3 ) THE facts in short are that Vigilance p. S. Case No. 9 of 2001 was registered on 5-7-2001 against the shashank Shekhar singh, who was Block Development Officer, kuru and Sant Lal Roy, who was the Block statistical Officer for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the prosecution arises out of a petition filed by informant ajoy Kumar Sahu to the I. G. Vigilance with respect to the allegation against these two accused persons. In the petition it was alleged that he was an unemployed educated youth. He took contract work of repair of a basic school at village Ziling under Kuru block in the district of Lohardaga. He, completed some portion of repair work but he had to receive some payment by way of third instalment from the authority for the work, so he contacted shashank Shekhar Singh, B. D. O. of Kuru block and Sant Lal Rai who happened to be the Block Statistical Officer in the block. Both the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the informant. The FIR further goes to show that he was not inclined to give the bribe to the accused persons but on the repeated requests for payment of 10% of the scheme, the accused persons demanded bribe. In case of non-payment of bribe the informant suspected difficulties, hence he gave written information to I. G. Vigilance and on receipt of it, the I. G. Vigilance directed the inspector L. N. Singh to verify the matter. Shri L. N. Singh Inspector, Vigilance on 5-7-01 along with this informant went to the quarter of accused shashank Shekhar Singh who was sitting an the varandah of his residence. The informant in presence of l. N. Singh paid respect to the B. D. O. and in his presence, the e. D. O. Shashank Shekhar Singh demanded 10% commission from the informant. The informant was to give Rs. 4000/- out of which he only paid Rs. 2000/ -. So the B. D. O. demanded the rest amount for which the informant promised to make payment by the evening. Then this Inquiring Officer L. N. Singh, Inspector (Vigilance) went to the official residence of accused Sant Lal Rai along with informant. Fortunately, this accused was also sitting in the varandah and in his presence the accused demanded sum of Rs. 1000/- from the informant. The informant agreed to pay. Accordingly, he submitted report to I. G. Vigilance. Accordingly, a trap was organized after preparing G. C. notes memorandum on which the members of trap party put their signatures on it. Demonstration was shown for the process and thereafter trap party left for residence of accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons were trapped and a sum of Rs. 2000/- was recovered from the possession of accused shashank Shekhar Singh. Seizure list was prepared G. C. notes were recovered. The procedure of seizure was followed and thereafter vigilance started investigation and ultimately submitted charge sheet along with sanction order.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi and the accused persons were served with Police Papers. Thereafter a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons before the trial Court purported to be under Section 239, Cr. P. C. for their discharge from the case on 4-7-2003 and thereafter a Supplementary Discharge Petition on their behalf was also filed, said to be