IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9575 of 2010 Chandrahas Verma, son of Sri Hardeo Das, resident of Village- Parwa,P.S.Nauhatta, District Saharsa ----- Petitioner Versus. The State of Bihar through Vigilance ---- Opp. Party For the petitioner : Mr.Sharvesh Chandra Verma,Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr.Arvind Kumar, I/C.Spl.P.P.Vigilance ----------- 3. 19.3.2010. In this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has challenged the legal propriety of the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in Special Case No.01/2006 and 109/2008 whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge him from offences in Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2006, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been rejected. In the application for discharge it was contended that no case had been made out against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 13(1) (d) of the 2 P.C.Act, more so, when the co-accused Dr.Vachaneshwar Jha has not been proceeded against and has been made an approver. It is also contended that the materials on record do not show the complicity of the accused petitioner of the crime in question inasmuch as the recovery of the amount from the possession of the accused is no where connected with the expenses of illegal gratification and in fact such was money collected for contribution to the temple. The learned Special Judge has noticed that there are materials to show that the accused petitioner was Steno to D.D.C. and Prabhakar Lal Das, Nazir were involved in the crime in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and on perusal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge I am of the considered opinion that whatever urged in the application for discharge may be a good ground for defence, but it would not entail discharge. It is well settled law that at the stage of discharge, the trial court has to only examine that as to whether on the materials available on record conviction could be reasonably conceived of. 3 Regard being had to be factual matrix at hand, it cannot be said that the materials brought on record is totally based on suspicion alone rather there has also been recovery. The explanation preferred by the accused by way of his defence is a question of trial. Hence, the learned trial judge is justified in not discharging the accused petitioner. Resultantly the application for quashing the impugned order of discharge, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. psc ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )