Non-pendency of official work and recovery of bribe amount are matters of trial, not grounds for discharge.

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the Rural Works Department, challenged an order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhagalpur, which rejected his discharge petition in a bribery case under Sections 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his superiors demanded a bribe of ₹40,000 and ₹62,000 respectively from a contractor for clearing final bills.

A vigilance trap was conducted on 29.07.2022, where the petitioner was allegedly apprehended with ₹40,000 in treated currency notes.

The petitioner argued that the final bill had already been paid before the date of the alleged demand and that he lacked the authority to sanction payments.

1. Whether there was sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner despite his defenses regarding the prior payment of bills and lack of jurisdiction.

2. Whether the recovery of currency notes, supported by an audio recording of the demand, satisfies the requirements for proceeding to trial under the P.C. Act.

The court primarily applied the "prima facie case" test for framing charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It relied on the principle from *Padmakar Balkrishna Samant v. Abdul Rehman Antulay* (1984) 2 SCC 183, which establishes that at the stage of framing charges, the court must only see if a prima facie case exists and cannot deeply evaluate the defense's evidence.

It further distinguished *B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.* (2014) 13 SCC 55 and *State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma* (2013) 14 SCC 153, noting that while mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction, the presence of verifying evidence such as audio recordings necessitates a trial.

The court reasoned that at the stage of considering a discharge petition, the defense provided by the accused cannot be looked into unless the documents are of an "impeachable nature" that single-handedly disprove the prosecution.

Although the petitioner claimed the final bill was already paid and he had no official role in the payment process, the court found that the Vigilance Department had followed standard trap procedures, including the use of phenolphthalein powder.

Crucially, the court noted the existence of a verified demand through a "verifier" and an audio recording of the bribe conversation.

The court held that the correctness or evidentiary value of the audio clip and the merits of the petitioner's departmental authority are matters for trial, not for summary dismissal at the discharge stage.

It concluded that since there is prima facie evidence of both demand (via audio recording) and acceptance (via trap recovery), the case must proceed to trial.

The interim relief was denied, and the trial court's order was upheld.