1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent / complainant before the Trial Court is that this petitioner is working as a Special Tahsildar and an application was pending before him in respect of Sy.No.56 to the extent of 1 acre 37 guntas in RRT No.55/2013-14 and when the complainant went and met the petitioner, he demanded an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to favour him and once again when he went and met to pursue the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded an amount Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs as advance. When C.W.1 requested to receive only Rs. 2 lakhs or 3 lakhs, he told him to pay Rs. 5 lakhs and that he would issue the copy of the order only on payment of balance amount. That on 18.12.2017, when the petitioner was in the office in Kandaya Bhavana, the complainant met him and requested to pass an order and told him that he has brought Rs.5 lakhs advance as agreed and at that time, the petitioner called accused No.2 and instructed him to receive the amount. Accordingly, accused No.2 took him to Kandaya Bhavana, IInd Floor in between the two toilets and told him to give the money to him and the complainant gave the money to accused No.2 and he counted the amount and kept the amount in his pant pocket and trap was laid and hence invoked the offence punishable under S.7, S.8, S.13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('P.C. Act' for short).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that an application was filed before the Trial Court for discharge of the petitioner on the ground that there was no any recovery and no entrustment and first trap was not successful and in the second trap only the amount was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 and no demand was made by this petitioner and this petitioner is no way connected to the said bribe amount and the recovery is at the DC office and not in the office of the petitioner. In the absence of any material, this petitioner cannot be sent to trial. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have passed an order discharging the petitioner, but failed to discharge the petitioner even though without any material.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, reported in 1996 (11) SCC 720 : (AIR 1995 SC 2178), wherein it is observed with regard to the accused - appellant held in a trap and tainted money recovered from his drawer in his office. Appellant pleading that the money was put into his drawer without his knowledge. The complainant stating that the tainted money was put in the drawer on the direction of the appellant. The evidence of P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses contradict on this aspect. It is also held that in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt and conviction and sentence imposed on him by the lower Courts has to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court passed in Cri.RC.No.239/2019 dated 26.04.2019 in the case of Mathumathi v. State by Superintendent of Police : (AIROnLine 2019 Mad. 1837), considering the similar aspect and brought to the notice of this Court the rejection of discharge application and in paragraph No.24 made an observation that for an offence punishable under S.13(1)(e) read with S.13(2) of the P.C. Act, no statutory presumption is available under S.20 of the Act, as has been held in the Delhi High Court reported in 2012 SCC Online Del. 1782 (Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI) : (AIROnLine 2012 Del. 65)and extracted the order with regard to framing of charge. The charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the Court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some materials. Therefore, suspicion cannot alone, without anything more, it is trite, form the ba