P. N. BAKSHI, J. ( 1 ) THESE are a bunch of cases filed by the aggrieved parties against an order passed by Sri B. L Sachdeva, Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lucknow framing charges against the accused. ( 2 ) IN case No. 6 of 1981 State v. Dr. S. R. Jam and others charges have beent framed an 29. 7. 1982 against the applicants under Sections 120-B Indian Penal Code 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 409, 468, 471, 477-A read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Against this order Criminal Revision No. 1568 of 1982 has been filed in this Court by Dr. S. R. Jam. ( 3 ) IN case No. 7 of 1981 State v. Dr. S. R. Jam and others similar charges have been framed by the said court, on 29th July 1982 from which Criminal Revision No. 1569 of 1982 has been filed in this Court by Dr. S. R. Jam. ( 4 ) IN Case No. 8 of 1981 State v. Dr. S. R. Jam and others, the Special Judge has framed similar charges on 29. 7. 1982 against which Criminal Revision No, 1570 of 1982 has been filed in this Court by Dr. S. R. Jam. ( 5 ) IN case No, 9 of 1981 State v. Dr. S. R. Jam and others also similar charges were framed by the said Special Judge vide his order dated 29. 7. 1982 from which Criminal Revision No. 1567 of 1982 has been filed in this Court. ( 6 ) IT may also be mentioned that four applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings pending against Dr, S. R. Jam in the aforesaid cases have also been filed by him, which are numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No: 541 of 1882, 753 of 1982, 754 of 1952 and 755 of 1982. ( 7 ) IN Criminal Case No. 5 of 1981 State v. Dr. S. N. Sahai and others, charges have been framed by the said Special Judge Lucknow on 24th July 1982 under Section 120-8 Indian Penal Code and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act from which Criminal Revision No. 1953 of 1982 has been preferred by Sri Ved Prakash Grover in this Court. Misc. S. N. Sahai and others, charges have been framed by the said Special Judge Lucknow on 24th July 1982 under Section 120-8 Indian Penal Code and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act from which Criminal Revision No. 1953 of 1982 has been preferred by Sri Ved Prakash Grover in this Court. Misc. Application No. 1713 of 1982 under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has also been filed by Sri Grover for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the Court below. ( 8 ) TWO more Criminal Revisions have been filed in this Court arising out of Case No. 9 of 1981 referred to above. One of them has been filed by Dr. G. D. Das Gupta viz. Criminal Revision No. 1812 of 1982 and the other by Dr. K. C. Chakravarty viz Criminal Revision No. 2015 of 1982 praying for quashing the charges framed against them by the said Special Judge. In these circumstances all these 7 revisions and five petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code have come up before me for disposal. ( 9 ) DR. S. R. Jam was the Chief Medical Officer of District Azamgarh from 14. 9. 1979 to 28. 5. 1980. Dr. P. C. Samant, Dr. G. C. Das Gupta and Dr. B. D. Singh were posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer 1st 2nd 3rd respectively. Dr. K. G. Chakravarty and Miss A. Kailr were posted as Superintendent, District Hospital and Superintendent, Female Hospital, Azamgarh. ( 10 ) SRI V. P. Grover was the Managing Director of Mis. Grosons Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow, which was a firm engaged in the manufacture and distribution of drugs. ( 11 ) THE prosecution case is that before 11. 10. 1979 the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves in order to cause wrongful gain to Sri V. P. Grover, Managing Director of Grosons Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow by purchasing unapproved and unwanted medicines worth several lacs from his firm, which was neither an approved firm nor a reputed firm, in violation of the Government orders and circulars issued from time to time by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Lucknow. Government Order No. 931 S. P. dated 8. 5. Government Order No. 931 S. P. dated 8. 5. 1977 issued by the Director of Industries, Kanpur has defined reputed firm as one which has sale of medicines in the market for more than two years and which has not been challaned under the Drugs Act and has no arrears of Sales Tax or Income Tax. Grosons Pharmaceutical Lucknow was not a reputed firm of medicines as it came in the market in July 1978. Its name was not included in the list of firms approved for purchase of Stores by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, New Delhi. It is said that a meeting of the District Purchase Committee was held on 11. 10. 1979 under the Chairmanship of Dr. S. R. Jam, Chief Medical Officer. It was attended by all the three Deputy Chief Medical Officers and two Superintendents as members of the said Committee for the year 1978-79. In this Medicing a few firms including Grosons and Crimson Labs Lucknow were selected for purchase of medicines though Grosons was neither approved nor reputed. It was also alleged that the Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Chief Medical Officers and Superintendents of Hospitals have power to purchase medicines worth Rs. 500/- only at a time in ordinary case and Rs, 2000/-in emergency and life saving cases. It is obligatory for them to call tenders and quotations for purchasing medicines. The orders were split up and placed with Grosons without calling for tenders. It was further the prosecution case that in the beginning of the year 1980 Juandice (Infective Hepatitits) has spread in epidemic form in Azamgarh and to combat this calamity a budget of 4 Lacs had been sanctioned by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services. The Office copy of the telegram for sanction of additional budget of Rs. 4 Lacs was brought personally by Sri V. P. Grover on 31. 3. 1980 and delivered to Dr. S. R. Jam Chief Medical Officer Azamgarh for purchase of the medicines. Out of this additional budget the Chief Medical Officer allocated 2 Lacs to Dr. P. C. Samant, Deputy Chief Medical Officer I, and Rs. 2 Lacs to Dr. B. D. Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer III. 3. 1980 and delivered to Dr. S. R. Jam Chief Medical Officer Azamgarh for purchase of the medicines. Out of this additional budget the Chief Medical Officer allocated 2 Lacs to Dr. P. C. Samant, Deputy Chief Medical Officer I, and Rs. 2 Lacs to Dr. B. D. Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer III. It is the prosecution allegation that this budget was not utilised for the purchase of medicines required for the treatment of Jaundice in view of the conspiracy, and by transgressing the financial powers unapproved medicines worth Rs. 3,91,342/68 were purchased at higher rates from Grosons Pharmaceuticals without calling for tenders, in order to cause wrongful gain to Sri Grover, Managing Director of the said concern. The result was that Infective Hepatitits spread in epidemic form and could not be controlled. The medicines suggested by the team of experts of All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, Director of Medical Health. Services and Dr K. S. Srivastava were not purchased. As such, on account of the nonavailability of essential life saving drugs a number of patients admitted in the hospitals died between April 1980 to July 1980. It was further alleged that Dr. S. R. Jam had obtained a further allocation of budget to the extent of Rs. 4 Lacs between 20th March 1980 and 31st March 1980 for purchase of medicines for the effective treatment of Leparosy but purchased unapproved medicines worth Rs. 3,83,157/85 which were not required, for the treatment of Leparosy at higher rates and lesser rebate without calling for tenders, in violation of the Government orders. Beraft of all other details this, broadly speaking, is the prosecution ease on the basis of which charges have been framed against the accused: ( 12 ) IT appears that after the submission of the charges against the accused Dr. S. R. Jam moved a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code in the High Court for quashing the proceedings pending against him. The High Court vide its order dated 1. 2. 1982 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 1982 referred to above, stayed the proceedings. But this stay order was vacated on 1. 4. 1982, in order to provide opportunity to the petitioners to address arguments in the court blow under Section 239 Criminal Procedure Code against framing of charges. The petition remained pending in this Court. 2. 1982 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 1982 referred to above, stayed the proceedings. But this stay order was vacated on 1. 4. 1982, in order to provide opportunity to the petitioners to address arguments in the court blow under Section 239 Criminal Procedure Code against framing of charges. The petition remained pending in this Court. The special Judge, Anti Corruption after considering the police report and the documents which had been submitted under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and after examination of the accused and hearing the counsel for the parties, was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and as such he has framed the charges in question against the applicants, by his order dated 2. 7. 1982. Thereafter the abovementioned applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and, the Criminal Revisions connected therewith have come up for disposal before me. ( 13 ) I have heard counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material on record. ( 14 ) BROADLY speaking there are two main charges. One of conspiracy under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and the other of corruption under Section 512) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. So far as the charge of conspiracy is concerned, the legal position is very clear that there need not be direct evidence on the record and such a charge can be held proved with reference to the circumstances which are established in the case. ( 15 ) SO far as the charge of corruption is concerned, that will again depend upon the facts and circumstances which are established from the evidence on the record. ( 16 ) AT the stage of the cases it will not be fair for me to deal in detail with each of the points raised by the counsel for the applicants and the replies submitted by the Government counsel in order to record my specific findings thereon. Specific findings given by me on a consideration of the material on the record, which for the time being consists of the statements recorded during investigation, would if adverse to the applicants, prejudice their case in future also when evidence is led in the trial. Similarly findings recorded on controversial questions argued on behalf of the State, if adverse to the State would also prejudice their case. Similarly findings recorded on controversial questions argued on behalf of the State, if adverse to the State would also prejudice their case. I have, therefore, very minutely examined the submissions of the respective counsels, as also the material on the record in support of their submissions with a view to come to a conclusion whether there is sufficient material on the record for proceeding with the trial. There can be no doubt that if there is no evidence in support of the charges, then it would, not serve the cause of justice, if the trial is allowed to proceed for such a charge. But at the same time if there is evidence on the record, which though it may be disputed by the counsels for either side, it is not the function of this Court at this stage to scrutinise the evidence and to a conclusion whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. Keeping these principles in mind, I would like to refer to some salient points raised by the contesting parties, in order to decide the question whether the trial should he proceeded with. ( 17 ) ALL these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. On the question of conspiracy the arguments of the applicants counsel have been that there is no material on the record to indicate that the applicants agreed to achieve an illegal object by legal means or a legal object by illegal means. The evidence on the record merely indicates that there was a meeting of the Purchase committee held on 11th October, 1979. Under the Rules, such a meeting has to be held. On the other hand, counsel for the State has argued that even though such a meeting may be held but the Committee was not authorised to prepare a list of approved manufacturers contrary to the directions of the Government. They could not select manufacturers who were not reputed i. e. who did not have a standing of manufacturing drugs for a period of at least two years. The definition of reputed Firm was relied upon by the State, Counsel. They could not select manufacturers who were not reputed i. e. who did not have a standing of manufacturing drugs for a period of at least two years. The definition of reputed Firm was relied upon by the State, Counsel. The reply oil behalf of the applicants is that even though the firm Grosons was of less than two years standing, yet many other firms had obtained loan agreements, on the basis of which they manufactured their drugs in, the premises of, Grosons and as such the same was a reputed firm. Counsel for the State argued that the members of the Committed had decided from before that they would approve Grosons Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow and as such without any opposition of the members, agreed to approve the name of this firm in the list of approved manufacturers, even though the firm was not legally entitled to be brought on such list. A narration, of the above submissions clearly indicates that there are several disputed questions of fact alleged therein, which have to be decided before a finding can be arrived at; The normal procedure prescribed by law should only be throttled when the question involved is crystal clear, which is not the position in the present cases. A great deal of evidence is likely to be led by the parties when the trial commences. In my view, it would not be correct for me to forestall the trial and to striffle the prosecution in the circumstances mentioned above. ( 18 ) THE other question had been raised is that the medicines which had been purchases from Grosons were not meant either for Jaundice, or Leprosy. Special grants of Rs. 4 lacs each has been given by the Government for the purchase of such medicines. Jaundice was spreading in epidemic from in Azamgarh and on account of the non-purchase of proper medicines it led to a great loss of lives in Government Hospitals. Counsel for the applicants have tried to point out that a number of medicines which had been purchased could be used for the treatment of Jaundice and Leprosy. The reports of the Doctor prescribing the medicines have been criticised. Again the question arises as to what were the appropriate medicines for tire treatment of these diseases and whether the existing stock of medicines as well as the stock purchased provided an adequate treatment. The reports of the Doctor prescribing the medicines have been criticised. Again the question arises as to what were the appropriate medicines for tire treatment of these diseases and whether the existing stock of medicines as well as the stock purchased provided an adequate treatment. These are debatable matters for which detailed evidence must he, recorded and tested by cross-examination in order to enable a court to come to a specific finding. ( 19 ) ANOTHER argument which has been, raised by the counsel for the applicants is that at the most the error committed by the Doctors, in placing Grosons on the approved list and purchasing medicines from this firm may amount to an irregularity but it cannot be said that any criminal offence has been committed. The State Counsel on the other hand submits that where approval of the firms is given contrary to the directions of the Government and where medicines are purchased for diseases other than those for which grants had been made it cannot be said that it is a case of mere irregularity. The circumstances may indicate a conspiracy of the members of the Purchase Committee to cause wrongful gain to Grosons and consequently loss to the Government. This Question also is not free from difficulty and required consideration of evidence led at the trial. ( 20 ) ANOTHER question which has been raised is with regard to the financial power of the, Doctors concerned to place orders for the medicines valued at Rs. 8 Lacs. The argument for the applicants is that no rules were violated and the orders which were placed were within the legal competence of the Doctors. On the other hand State Counsel has submitted that normally an order could be placed for the purchase of the medicines of the value of Rs. 500/ and in emergent cases of Rs. 2,000/ -. But in the instant cases orders were split up in such a manner as to avoid the clutches of law which was a mala fide act. This aspect of the case can only be tested after the evidence has been recorded at the trial. ( 21 ) THERE are some other questions which have been raised but I feel it unnecessary to deal with each one. On each of the points in controversy there is existing material on the record on both sides. This aspect of the case can only be tested after the evidence has been recorded at the trial. ( 21 ) THERE are some other questions which have been raised but I feel it unnecessary to deal with each one. On each of the points in controversy there is existing material on the record on both sides. I do not agree with the submissions of the applicants counsels that the instant cases can be covered by principle of Tno evidence existing on the record. As I have mentioned above, I have refrained from giving my own findings on these controvertial points I am thoroughly satisfied that there does exists material on the record for and against the petitioners. How far that material would be accepted after assessment and appraisement is a matter which would be appropriately decided after the evidence had been led at the trial and put to test by cross-examination by the parties. To my mind, this is not a fit case in which the proceedings or the charges should be quashed. ( 22 ) FOR the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in these revisions as well as applications under Sections 482 Criminal Procedure Code which ale all hereby dismissed. The Court below is directed to proceed expeditiously with the disposal of the cases. Petitions dismissed. .