JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh. J -These petitions are being decided by this judgment, since the prosecution case against them has similar pattern and Counsel for the parties also argued them together. 2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioners is that Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, on the assessment of the demand by Industries in the State, used to place the requirement of steam coal and hard coke, before the Director Movement, Railway Board, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. As a result of this, wagons for the supply of these commodities were allocated each year. The Himachal Pradesh State Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation was appointed agent by the Director of Industries and information regarding the movement of coal wagons from coal fields alongwith allocation of quota of coal used to be supplied to this Corporation by the Director of Industries. Initially, this Corporation acted as handling agent of the Director of Industries and used to come to Chandigarh for the purpose and then distribute the same to various industrial units located in the State. Due to the short fall of railway wagons, the quota of coal allotted to the .State, used to lapse every year. It was to be lifted from three coal fields—Eastern Coal Field Ltd , Saktoria, Bharat Cooking Coal Field Ltd., Dhanbad and Central Coal Field Ltd. Ranchi. By this short receipt of coal, the industrial units of the State were starving due to the non-supply of coal requirements ; these industrial units were approaching the Director of Industries for the supply of coal to the extend of their need. 3. The petitioners, namely, Sudhir Kumar Arya and Ravinder Nath Sharma came forward with the proposal to supply these requirements of coal to the State Industrial Units by road and undertook to supply the same as per the price fixed by the Director of Industries. They also undertook to open Depots near ail the industrial areas in the State. 4. Although the Himachal Pradesh Small Scale Industries Export Corporation was the agent for the purpose, however, without consulting its Director, one of the accused, namely, Ram Kumar, Deputy Director of Industries, recommended the cases of the accused and in doing so he mis represented numerous facts with an intent to benefit the firms with whom he bad entered into conspiracy. Although the Himachal Pradesh Small Scale Industries Export Corporation was the agent for the purpose, however, without consulting its Director, one of the accused, namely, Ram Kumar, Deputy Director of Industries, recommended the cases of the accused and in doing so he mis represented numerous facts with an intent to benefit the firms with whom he bad entered into conspiracy. Without calling any tender and completing the codal formalities, orders to the extent of 5 Metric Tonnes were placed with the directions by the Director of Industries that no further supply order would be issued without his approval. Although the first order following this was issued with the approval of the Director of Indus tries but all subsequent orders were given without such permission. The firm of K. R. Behl supplied only 635.590 metric tonnes of coal whereas the balance to the extent of 13,205 801 Metric Tonnes was sold in the black market. 5. In the case of R. N. Sharma, proprietor M/s. Jawala Enterprises, New Delhi, 15,500 Metric tonnes, out of which 7637 896 metric tonnes were lifted from various collieries but supplied only 14.360 metric tonnes and sold rest of the coal in the black market. 6. As soon as this scandal, pertaining to the year 1981, came to light in 1985, first information report No 2/85 dated 4-2-1985 under sections 420/120-B Indian Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the accused who, included the proprietors of these two firms, sub-agents appointed by them, Deputy Director of Industries, namely, Ram Kumar Upmanya and a few others, who, according to the prosecution, entered into conspiracy as a result of which they cheated the Government of Himachal Pradesh and gained illegally by the sale of the large quantity of coal in the black market. 7. The matter was investigated and the police collected large number of documents and examined quite a big number of witnesses, in this case. On completion of investigation, two separate challans have been filed for the prosecution of the accused. The matter appeared before the Special Judge, Shimla, who, framed charges against the accused in this case on 12-5-1990 to which the accused have not pleaded guilty and have claimed trial. Through the present petitions, framing of charge by the Special Judge in these cases, has been challenged. 8. The matter appeared before the Special Judge, Shimla, who, framed charges against the accused in this case on 12-5-1990 to which the accused have not pleaded guilty and have claimed trial. Through the present petitions, framing of charge by the Special Judge in these cases, has been challenged. 8. S/Shri A. K. Goel and D. D, Sood, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have right to speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In these cases, the petitioners are being tried after a lapse of five years, relating to an offence that was committed around 3rd August, 1981, when applications for appointment as agents were preferred by them. The transaction was completed in 1982 and during all the years, the petitioners had been suffering on account of the pending investigation and prosecution. In support of these submissions, strong reliance was placed on (1989) 4 SCC 62, Madhu Menta v. Union of India and others, (1986) 4 SCC 481, Simranjit Singh Mann v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 Cr LJ 984, Prithvi Raj and another v. State of Haryana, 1982 1LR (HP) 317, State of H. P. v. Iqbal Singh Kohli, 1982 ILR (HP) 327, B N. Ganjoo v. State of HP. There is no dispute to the principle that the accused has right to speedy investigation and trial in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India To achieve this object, every effort should be made to investigate, and prosecute the accused without delay. In order to examine whether the prosecution has committed delay or not, each case has to be seen by the Court and decided accordingly. The decisions, other than those of the apex Court turn on their own facts and are not strictly relevant so they are ot no assistance to the cases in hand. 9. Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Counsel for the State read out and explained the circumstances under which this scandal came to the notice of the State Government; the case was registered and in order to collect evidence, the investigating agency had to move from place to place in and outside the State, including the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh where-from the Coal supplies were to be collected. Witnesses were examined and the documents were seized. Witnesses were examined and the documents were seized. In order to substantiate the submissions, it was submitted that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to support the allegations against the accused. In addition to other kind of evidence, the prosecution has also collected authority letter of Kuldip Rai Behl to his sub-agents for collecting coal, payment-slips through which coal prices were deposited in the Bank by Kuldip Rai and sub-agents and their signatures, duly certified by hand-writing experts. Records of different collieries establishing that coal was despatched to Himachal Pradesh but did not cross the borders of State of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Security papers, issued by the Regional Manager (Coal India), Chandigarh Branch, duly signed by Kuldip Rai Behl, statements of Managers of Banks, showing, -that amounts were deposited by the accused, statements of proprietors of various units in the State, stating that coal supplies were not made to them, statement of Daljeet Singh recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure pointing out that the main accused were paid Rs. 50 to Rs 60 per metricton and out of this transaction, they gained about Rs. 8.00 lacs. Statements of coal field officials about the delivery of coal to the accused and their agents etc. etc., statement of Mohan Lai, Dealing Assistant m tie Department of Industries saying that some of the release orders were issued without approval of Director of Industries. In view of this kind of evidence, the State Counsel submitted quite strenuously that these ate not the cases of no evidence where this Court can interfere and quash the prosecution ; rather there is clear evidence collected by the prosecution in these cases which establishes the allegations against the accused, the learned Counsel contended. It was also submitted that at this stage, evidence is not to be weighed maticulously, only prima facie case is to be seen as held by the Supreme Court in decisions like, AIR 1977 SC 201, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1980 SC 58, Thakoreshri Naharasinghji Dolatsinghji etc.v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1960 SC 866, R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 366, M/s. Sat Pal and Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others and AIR 1977 SC 2433, Yashpal Mittal v. State of Punjab. 10. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others and AIR 1977 SC 2433, Yashpal Mittal v. State of Punjab. 10. I see great deal of substance in the submissions of Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Counsel for the State, who argued these cases in a most efficient way dwelling on each aspect of the various issues involved in these cases. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the Special Judge has framed charges against the accused without any evidence in support of the same. As held by the apex Court in large number of decision, at the stage of charge the Court need not weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution maticulously. The charge can, of course, be quashed in case the Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution is lame and there is no evidence to support the charge or the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the accused etc. etc R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra). 11. Finally, Shri D. D. Sood submitted that there is nothing against the accused in Cr. M. P. (M) No. 180 of 1990, namely, Sudhir Kumar Arya. This is not so. He is also party to the conspiracy in this case. He has taken an active part and one such part relates to the deposit of money through pay-in-slips in the Banks. The allegation against the accused is that they entered into a conspiracy as a result of which the coal was mis appropriated and sold in the black market, thus cheated the State of Himachal Pradesh Id a conspiracy, it is not necessary that every person knows each and every step of the transaction, which is known to the principal conspirators. Simply because some one knows only a small part of the transaction, it cannot be held that he did not participate in the conspiracy. We are just at the commencement of the trial, which is now to start. 12. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in any of these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove will prejudice the trial Court against the parties to this case. The matter will be decided in accordance with law and evidence that comes before the Court, during the trial of these cases. Petition dismissed.