JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Bikaner dated 8-7-1987 whereby he has discharged the accused-non-petitioner of the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d)(ii) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that in year 1980, the accused-non-petitioner Baldeo Goswami was posted as Executive Engineer, PHED Sardarshahar. He invited tenders for purchasing 'single phase Preventors with Automatic control' vide tender notices dated 11-2-1980 and 29-2-1980. It is alleged that in pursuance of those tender notices, the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar, who is the proprietor of firm Gomati Electric Company, Jaipur submitted his tender. Two others tenders were also received on, from M/s Krishna Engineering Work, Jaipur and other from M/s Rallonix, Jaipur. It is alleged that all these three tenders were signed by accused non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar. He did so in complicity and in connivance with accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Baldeo Goswami in order to cause loss to the Government, so that these articles may be purchased at the higher rates. It is further alleged that these tenders were opened by accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Baldeo Goswami on 18-2-1980 and 12-3-1980 in the presence of accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar and the rates of M/s Gomati Electric Company were found to be lowest and, therefore, the rates given by M/s Gomati Electric Company were approved. It is alleged that by accepting the rates given by M/s Gomati Electric Company the Government was put to a loss of Rs. 1900/-. 3. A complaint of this matter was made to the Government and certain enquiries was made. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Anti-Corruption Department. The Anti-Corruption Department after usual investigation filed the challan in the court of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Bikaner. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases after perusal of the material on record came to the conclusion that no case is made put against the accused-non-petitioners and consequently, the accused-non-petitioners were discharged. Hence this revision by the State. 4. I have heard Miss Sumitra Sankhla, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 1. Hence this revision by the State. 4. I have heard Miss Sumitra Sankhla, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 1. No body has appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar despite service of notice. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. The case of the prosecution is that accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar had procured the letter-heads of M/s Krishna Engineering Work and M/s Rallonix, Jaipur in complicity and in connivance with accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Baldeo Goswami in order to supply certain articles to the Government at the higher rates. It is alleged that all the three tenders were filled in by Shri K.K. Nayyar. Even they were signed by him. He delivered all these three tenders personally to accused-non-petitioner No. 1, Shri Baldeo Goswami. Even the instruments for testing were directly supplied to the accused-non petitioner No. 1, Shri Baldeo Goswami. 6. The learned Judge has rendered a very detailed order in which the entire evidence that has been collected on record has been quoted in extenso. Shri Parmanand Katariya has been examined to show what is the procedure to be adopted for inviting tenders. He does not throw any light on the fact whether there was any complicity and connivance between accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Boldeo Goswami and accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar. Shri Hapoot Mal was working as Cashier at the relevant time. He has only stated that on the basis of the orders issued he made payments of certain articles, which were purchased be the then Executive Engineer. Shri Lalloram Gupta, Assistant Engineer has stated that the tender submitted by M/s Gomati Electricals Company was the lowest and, therefore, articles were purchased from this firm. According to him, he checked these instruments and they were found in order by him. These instruments were given to him for testing by the Stores. Thus, he belies the testimony of the Store-keeper that these instruments were not handed over to him. Shri Chandulal Gehlot, Assistant Engineer was the Incharge of the Stores. He has submitted that these articles were supplied directly to the Executive Engineer. The testimony of Shri Chandulal stands belied by the testimony of Shri Lalloram Gupta. 7. Thus, he belies the testimony of the Store-keeper that these instruments were not handed over to him. Shri Chandulal Gehlot, Assistant Engineer was the Incharge of the Stores. He has submitted that these articles were supplied directly to the Executive Engineer. The testimony of Shri Chandulal stands belied by the testimony of Shri Lalloram Gupta. 7. Shri Nagarmal Yadav, Divisional Accountant has stated that a comparative statement was prepared and the rates given by M/s Gomati Electricals Company were found to be the lowest Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, UDC, has stated that tenders were opened on 18-2-1980 and at that time Shri K.K. Nayyar and one other person were present there. All the three tenders were received dasti and no tender was received by post. He does not know who submitted these tenders dasti. He has stated that a comparative statement was prepared by him and the rates submitted by M/s Gomati Electrical Company were found to be lowest and so, they were approved. Thus, it is clear that tenders were given dasti in the Office of the Executive Engineer. Even if the tenders have not been received by Post, it does not mean that they were directly given to the Executive Engineer. They were given dasti and who has delivered them could not be made clear by this witness. Even if the tenders were delivered to the Executive Engineer by the persons who submitted tenders, there is no illegality in it. More over, when the tenders were opened, one of the persons who submitted the tenders was present. It is nobody's case that a particular person submitted his tender was not deliberately opened in his presence. Thus, the discussion of the evidence of these witnesses does not throw any light regarding any conspiracy being hatched between accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Baldeo Goswami and accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar. 8. Of course, accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar has examined himself and he has admitted that it was he who has signed all these three tenders. One Pradeep Kumar Goel, a partner of Firm Rallonix has been examined and he has stated that Shri P.C. Gupta never worked in their firm, who has signed the tender on behalf of M/s Rollonix, He has stated that Shri K.K. Nayyar took certain letter-heads from him and he has used them by submitting forged tenders on their behalf. One Pradeep Kumar Goel, a partner of Firm Rallonix has been examined and he has stated that Shri P.C. Gupta never worked in their firm, who has signed the tender on behalf of M/s Rollonix, He has stated that Shri K.K. Nayyar took certain letter-heads from him and he has used them by submitting forged tenders on their behalf. These three tenders submitted by Shri K.K. Nayyar were sent for expert examination and the expert has reported that all these tenders have been signed by the same person. There is no dispute about the fact that accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar is the proprietor of M/s Gomati Electrical Company and he has signed his own tender and, therefore, it is clear that other tenders were also signed by him. If any forgery has been committed, it has been committed by Mr. K.K. Nayyar. In his statement, the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar has not stated that he did so in complicity or in connivance with accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Baldeo Goswami. Thus, there is not an iota of evidence that any conspiracy was hatched between Shri Baldeo Goswami and Shri K.K. Nayyar on the basis of which Shri Baldeo Goswami accepted the tender submitted by Mr. K.K. Nayyar. Rather, from the evidence it transpires that in order to procure the orders for supply of certain articles, Shri K.K. Nayyar has forged these tenders and, therefore, prima facie the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code are made out against Shri K.K. Nayyar and, therefore, the case should proceed against him alone either before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases or before a court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Judge has rightly discharged the accused-non-petitioner No. 1, Shri Baldeo Goswami of the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(1)(d)(ii) of the Anti-Corruption Act. 9. In the result I partially accept this revision petition and maintain the order of the learned lower court in so far as it relates to accused-non-petitioner No. 1, Shri Baldeo Goswami, who has been discharged of all the offences with which he was challaned. I also maintain the order of the learned lower court in so far as it relates to accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar as regards the offences under Sections 120B. I also maintain the order of the learned lower court in so far as it relates to accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar as regards the offences under Sections 120B. Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d)(ii), Anti-Corruption Act. How ever, the order of the learned court, as regards accused-non-petitioner No. 2. Shri K.K. Nayyar is set aside to this extent that on the basis of the record, there appears a prima facie case to proceed against him for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and the learned lower court is directed to proceed against him for the aforesaid offences, if they are triable by him. If these offences are not triable by him then the case may be forwarded to a court of competent jurisdiction.Revision Partly Accepted. *******