z tilGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH,-BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 43212011 > APPLICANT Siyaram Shanna, aged about 61 years. sfo Late Jankiprasad Rio Near 3' Police Station Pakhanjore, District Kanker Versus : NON-APPLICANT The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, U.B. Kanker t SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. Q Applicant- Siyaram Sharma was working on the post of Naib Tehsildar, Farasgaon‘ District Bastar. The allegations are that he demanded bribe of Rs.3000/» from complainant — Kalipaddas. When the matter wae reported to the concerned authorities, they firstly got their conversation taped by the Anti CorruMion Bureau and thereafter, a trap was arranged. The trap was successfully conducted and a sum of Rs.3000/- was seized from the pocket of the full pant of the applicant. Panchanama etc. were prepared and the currency notes were also identified by applying phenolphthalein test. The documents in this regard were also prepared. Statement of Kalipaddas (complainant) was also recorded, in which, he made serious allegations against the applicant that the applicant demanded bribe from him for passing a favourable order in a Revenue Case pending in the Court of the applicant. CRR 432/2011 ‘ The learned Special Judge, on the basis of'above material ‘ available on record, framed charges under Sections 7, 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. Shri Parag Kotecha. teamed counsei appearing for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter; there is no whisper about demand of bribe by the applicant in the tape conversation between the applicant and the complainant. therefore, the charges framed against the applicant should be quashed. A perusal of the charge sheet would show that complainant Kalipaddas has made positive allegations against the applicant wim material particulars and the applicant was caught red-handed by the trap party after realizing a sum of Rs.3000/- as illegal gradtication from the complainant. Therefore. prima facie there is sufficient material against the applicant to frame charges under the said Sections of Prevention Corruption Act. 1,988. 0n going through the entire evidence available on record. l do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 28.1.2011,by which, the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the applicant under the aforesaid Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. 198B. v The reVision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby R dismissed summarily. Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ Judge Sdl—