Honble B.R. ARORA, J. — These six miscellaneous petitions are directed against the order dated August 10, 1990, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Department Cases, Bikaner by which the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the petitioner. 2. Superintendent of Police Anti-corruption Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, lodged a First Information Report on February 15, 1983, at Police Station, Anti-corruption Department, Bikaner, against accused petitioners Harisingh Bhati, Jaspal Suri, Mukat Biharilal Mathur, Ramesh Kumar, Praveen Kumar Chawla, Inder Singh Thekedar of M/s Jaikarni General Store and Devendra Singh Contractor. It was stated in the First Information report that Shri Hari Singh Bhati Executive Engineers, Bailor Division, R.C.P. CAD Bikaner, Shri Mukat Behari Lal Mathur, Assistant Engineer RD 66, B.L.D. J.P. Shri Assistant. Engineer, R.D. 112 C.A.D. Pungal Branch, Joint Ehgineers -Ramesh Kumar Chawla and Devendra Kumar Jakkhar alongwith Indra Singh of M/s. Jaikarni General Stores, Bikaner and Devendra Singh of Rawat Theka Sabkari Samiti; conspired together and fraudulently changed the cement at Lalgarh Railway Station, which came from the factory and in its place, replaced the building materia! and sent this building material in place of the cement at the stores of Ballarpur Sub-Division at R.D. 66 BLD and R.D. 112 Pugal Branch (PB). In this way, they caused illegal loss to the State Govt. That building material, which was received at these two stores, is still available there. A compaint regarding the receipt of such low-quality of cement was so also received from Shri H.C. Gupta, Chairman, Overseers Association. Similar complaints were, also made by the contractors who were doing the construction work in that area, but Shri Singh Bhati, Executive Engineer, who was the Inch-arge of the Division, did not take any action. It was also, mentioned in the First Information Report that the cement, which was received from the factory was kept at the Railway Station, Lalgarh, by Shri Hari Singh Bhati for a considerably long time with an intention to change the same and, therefore, he extended the limit of carriage provided under the contract. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC as well as under Sections 5(1 )(d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the above mentio-ned accused petitioners. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC as well as under Sections 5(1 )(d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the above mentio-ned accused petitioners. After registration of the First Information Report, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Department, Bikaner, conducted the investigations and presented the challan against Hari Singh Bhati Executive Engineer, Jaspal Sun, Assistant Engineer, Mukat Bihari Lal Mathur, Assistant Engineer, Ramesh Kumar Chawla, Junior Engineer, Praveen Kumar Jakkhar, Junior Engineer, Shaukat Ali Junior Engineer, Bheem Singh Chowki-dar, Hukam Singh Chowkidar, Mustaq Chowkidar and Inder Singh of M/s. Jaikarni General Stores, Bikaner, in the Special Judge, Anti-corruption Cases, Bikaner under-Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 477, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(l)(d) read with Section 5 2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Alongwith the challan, the police presented 108 documents and, also submitted the statement of 42 witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC. The learned Special Judge, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused-petitioners, by his order dated August 10, 1990, framed the charges against the accused. It is against this order, framing the charges against the accused-petitioners that the present six miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the petitioners. 3. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 347 of 1990 (Praveen Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan) has been filed by Praveen Kumar, who, at the relevant time, was a Junior Engineer posted at the Stores of R. D. 66 BLD, Ballar Sub-Division No. 4. The Court framed the charges agains this accused under secs. 467, 468, 420, 471, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for accused-petitioner Praveen Kumar Jakkhar that in this case, everyone has been involved by the prosecution with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. The learned triai Court, while framing the charges against the accused petitioners, has not properly considered the case of the petitioner and the app-roah of the learned trail Court is perverse. The petitioner Praveen Kumar has no connection whatsoever with the loading or unloading of the cement in question and he was not the Uncharge of the Stores. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Praveen Kumar, Mr. Harisingh was the Executive Eng. The petitioner Praveen Kumar has no connection whatsoever with the loading or unloading of the cement in question and he was not the Uncharge of the Stores. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Praveen Kumar, Mr. Harisingh was the Executive Eng. who was Incharge of the whole Division while Jaspal Suri was the Assistant Engineer who was entrusted with the work of the supervising the carrying of the cement from Lalgarh Railway Station to the Stores of the A.C.D.. Rajasthan Canal Project situated RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-112 P.B. According to him, Jaspal Suri was the Assistant Engineer and Ramesh Kumar was the Junior Engineer, who was Inch-arge of Stores RD-112 P.B. while Mukat Biharilal Mathur and Saukat Ali were the Incharge of Stores RD-66 B.L D. He therefore, prayed that as the petitioner had no concerned with this work as he was recently posted as the Junior Engineer and, therefore, there was no evidence against the petitioner to proceed-with. He therefore, prayed that the charges against the petitioner have wrongly been framed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Special Judge, framing the charges against the petitioner. 4. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 350 of 1990 has been filed by Shaukat Ali against whom the learned Magistrate has framed the charges under section 120-B IPC and under section 5(1 )(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shaukat Ali that Shaukat Ali was the Junior Engineer at the Stores of RD-66 B.L.D. while the material was brought for the Stores of RD-112 P.B. of which Jaspal Suri was the Assistant Engineer and Ramesh Kumar Chawla was the Junior Engineer. As the petitioner Shaukat Ali has ho concern what soever with the material kept in the Store of RD-66 B.L.D. as it belongs to the Store of RD-112 P.B. and, there-fore, no case against the accused-petitioner Shaukat Ali is made out for framing the charges. It has, also, been argued that Bheemsingh was the Chowkidar at Lalgarh Railway Station and the goods were carried by Indersingh partner of M/s. Jai Kami General Stores and was received by Hukam Singh Chowkidar. He has, further submitted that 10,000 bags of cement were to be delivered to the Division I at RD-112 PB. It has, also, been argued that Bheemsingh was the Chowkidar at Lalgarh Railway Station and the goods were carried by Indersingh partner of M/s. Jai Kami General Stores and was received by Hukam Singh Chowkidar. He has, further submitted that 10,000 bags of cement were to be delivered to the Division I at RD-112 PB. for the completion of the work of Division I. There is no evidence against the accused-petitioner Shaukat Ali for framing the charge and the order dated Aug. 10, 1990, passed by the learned Special Judge framing the charges against the accused-petitioner deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court framing the charges against the petitioner. 5. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 351 of 1990 (Mukat Bihari Lal V. State of Rajasthan), the charges under Section 120 B IPC and under sections 5(1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been framed against theaccused-petitioner Mukat Bihari Lal Mathur; who was the Assistant Engineer at the Stores of RD-66 B.L.D., Ballar Division, 4 A.C.D., Rajasthan Canal Project. The same arguments, which have been advanced in the case of Shaukat Ali have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 438 of 1990 has been filed by Harisingh, who was the Executive Engineer, Ballapur Division. A.C.D., Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner, against whom the charges under Sec. 120 B IPC and under sec. 5(1 )(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been framed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for Harisingh Bhati that petitioner Hari Singh Bhati was the Executive Engineer at the relevant time and he was, also, acting as the Superintending Engineer it that time. He was holding the dual charges and his duty was only to supervise. He deputed Jaspal Suri, Asstt. Engineer Headquarters to supervise the work of carrying the cement from Lalgarh Railway Station to the Stores of Ballapur Sub-Division I & IV at RD-112 P. B. and RD-66 B.L.D. By asking a* Junior to supervise the work, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Harisingh Bhati, Mr. Jaspal Suri, Assistant Engineer and Mr. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Harisingh Bhati, Mr. Jaspal Suri, Assistant Engineer and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chawla, Junior Engineer, were appointed to supervise the work of carrying of the cement from Lalgarh Railway Station to the Stores of A.C.D. RD-112 PB and RD-66 B.L.D. It has also, been argued that so far as the contract of carriage given to Indersingh of Ms. Jaikarni General Stores is concerned, that was given after inviting tender and the tender of M/s Jaikarni General Stores was the lowest and, therefore, it was accepted. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner cannot be linked with the offence as he was on leave during this period, and he had not resumed the duty till the cement was taken to the Stores of Rajasthan Canal Project from Railway Station, Lalgarh. He has further argued that no formal written complaint was made before him before September 1,| 1982 and as soon as the complaint was received he sought the explanation of the concerned persons & took necessary steps to enquire into the matter & appointed Mr. N.S, Gehlot to submit his report. He also appointed Shri Harish Kumar and Shri Kishan Puri, Junior Engineer to enquire into the matter. He has further, submitted that as the petitioner was looking the charge of many Sub-Divisions, even if there was some negligence on his part, on that point he cannot be tried for the offences for which the charges have been framed against him. So far as passing of the bills is concerned, his case is that if the Assistant Engineer concerned certifies the bills and the Accounts Officer passes the bills then the Executive Engineer has no concern except to issue the cheques. He has only to issue the cheques after the bills are passed. As the bills were not passed by the petitioner and therefore there is no case made out against the petitioner to proceed-with. He has lastly submitted that the petitioner retired from the service in the month of December, 1990 and he is now no more in service. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court framing the charges against the petitioner. 7. He has lastly submitted that the petitioner retired from the service in the month of December, 1990 and he is now no more in service. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court framing the charges against the petitioner. 7. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8 of 1991 (Inder Singh V The State of Rajasthan) has been filed by Inder Singh Contractor, who is one of the partners in M/s. Jaikarni General Stores, Bikaner, and against whom charg-es under Section 120-B and 420 and in the alternative under Sec. 420/109 and 467 IPC have been framed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the peti-tioner Indersingh that no case from the evidence collected by the investigating agency during investigation, has been made-out against the petitioner. The petitioner carried the cement from Lalgarh Railway Station to the Stores of R.D. 66 BID. and RD-112 P.B. and whatever material was given to the petiti-oner, that was carried to these stores. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no link-evidence qua the petitioner connecting him with the crime. He has, also, submitted that no case for framing the charges under Section 467 IPC is made-out against him. Lastly, he submitted that there is no evidence on record, from which it could be gathered that the petitioner made supplies of Spurious cement at the stores. The learned coursed for the petitioner therefore, prayed that the charges framed against the petitioner Inder Singh may be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the learned lower Court, framing the charges against the petitioner. 8. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10 of 19991 (Bheem Singh v The State of Rajasthan) has been filed by three Chowkidars, viz, Bheem Singh, Mustaq and Hukam Singh, against whom the charges under Section 120-B IPC and under Section 5(1){d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrupti-on Act have been framed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitio-ner that these three persons are merely Chowkidars. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitio-ner that these three persons are merely Chowkidars. Bheem Singh was posted at the Lalgarh Railway Station at that time, who was keeping a watch over the goods at the Lalgarh Railway Station while Mustaq was posted at the Stores of RD-66 BLD and Hukam Singh was posted at the Stores of RD-112 P.B. What-ever material was sent by Shri Jaspal Suri from Lalgarh Railway Station was taken by Chowkidars at their respective stores as they are illiterate persons and they could not have distinguished the cement bags from the bags of building material as the building material was, also, carried in the cement bags. The learned counsel for these petitioners, therefore, prays that no case for framing the charges against these three petitioners is made-out. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against these petitioners by the learned lower Court. 9. I have considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. The investigating agency, during the course of investigation, collec-ted 108 documents, and, also recorded the statements of 42 witnesses. The investigating agency recorded the statements of 42 witnesses, which can be divi-ded into six groups. The first group consists the statements of the witnesses belonging to Udaipur Cement Works, Bajaj Nagar, Udaipur the company which supplied Portland/Pozzolana cement to the Executive Engineer, Ballarpur Division, A.C.D., R.C.P., Bikaner. The total number of bags supplied by the company was 19, 940 weighing 1010 tonnes of cement. This cement was sent by the company in gunny bags, which bore the seal of the company, and the special stitches were made by the company. Mr. R.K. Paliwal is the Gunny bags Incharge of the company, while Shri Shashi Mohan Chaturvedi is the Deputy Chief Chemist and Mr. D.N. Raina is the Manager, Process and Quality Control. The statements of all these witnesses are to the effect that the cement supplied by the company was of the good quality and was of the standard quality. The statement of Shashi Mohan is also, to the effect that the samples sent by the investigating agency from the RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-112 PB were not of the cement. After chemical examination it was found that the samples did hot fall in the category of cement even. The statement of Shashi Mohan is also, to the effect that the samples sent by the investigating agency from the RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-112 PB were not of the cement. After chemical examination it was found that the samples did hot fall in the category of cement even. The second group of evidence, collected by the investigating agency consists of the statements of Radhey Shyam Baraya, Proprietor of Baraya Enterprises, Jaipur. This company is engaged in the manufacture of the building material which is being supplied at the rate of Rs. 6 or Rs. 8/- per bag. The statement of Mr. Radhey Shyam Baraya is. to the extent that 24 trucks of building material were sent to Khajuwala & Rawla & were taken mostly by Om Prakash and Inder Singh, in trucks. These trucks were taken from Bikaner Golden Transport Company, Jaipur, Ganesh Roadways, Jaipur and Anand Road Lines, Jaipur. The third set of witnesses relates to the transportation of this building material from Baraya Enterprises, Jaipur to the stores of A.C.D.. S.C.P., situated at RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-112 P.B. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad Modi Partner of Bikaner Golden Transport Company Jaipur, Vijay Kumar Proprietor, Anand Roadlines Jaipur & Hari Shanker, Manager, Ganesh Roadways, Jaipur is thereon record and they stated that their trucks were engaged in carrying the building material from Baraya Enteprises, Jaipur to Khajuwala and Rawla between January 2, 1982 to April 10, 1982. Mr. Makhanlal, who is the brother of Dr. Bulakidas owner of truck No. RSF 1663, has stated that Bulakidas brought the building material of Harsukhram from Jaipur to Bikaner and as Bulakidas was not feeling well, he asked him for unloading the building material and the truck No. RSF 1663, has which was carrying the building material carried the same to the godowns (Stores) of Rajasthan Canal Project, situated at RD-112 P.B. and unloaded the truck of building material there. The bags containing the building material, was counted by Shri Hukamsingh, Chowkidar of the godown and was kept in the godown. Madansingh was the driver of truck No. RSB 7885 of Ganesh Roadways, Jaipur, who carried three trips of building material from Baraya Enterprieses, Jaipur, and unloaded the same at adistance of 19 kms. near Khajuwala. In one of the trips Gullaram, was, also, with him. The same is the statement of Gullaram on this point. Madansingh was the driver of truck No. RSB 7885 of Ganesh Roadways, Jaipur, who carried three trips of building material from Baraya Enterprieses, Jaipur, and unloaded the same at adistance of 19 kms. near Khajuwala. In one of the trips Gullaram, was, also, with him. The same is the statement of Gullaram on this point. Laxman stated that his uncle Hukamsingh owns a truck No. RJF 8949 and Laxmansingh was the driver. This truck brought building material from Baraya Enterprises, Jaipur and unloaded the same in the godown of RD-6 B.L.D. When the unloading from this truck was made, at that time this witness was present there and it was unloaded in the presence of Indersingh, who had brought this material from Jaipur. The fourth set of the witnesses are the agriculturists of village 2 B.L.D. and 2 P.B. Krishna S/o Shri Jeewanram, Krishnaram S/o Chokharam Mubarak and Ganpat are the residents of Chak 2- B.L.D. where the water courses were being constructed at the relevant time and the cement supplied from the Stores of RD-112 P.B. and RD-66 B.L.D. was being utilised. Ajeem Ramjan and Jora are the residents of Chak 2-P.B. where the water-courses were also to be constructed and in the construction of these water-courses, the cement was being used which was suuplied from the Stores of RD 112 PB. These witnesses have stated that the cement supplied from the stores of RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-110 P.B. were not of the prescribed standard and was not even cement and the water-courses were not properly constructed and, therefore, a complaint was made to Shri Hari Singh Bhati, Executive Engineer, when he visited and inspected the site and it was brought to his notice that the cement was not being used in the construction of the water-courses, but he did not take any note of it. Joraram and Sugnaram have further stated that they own carts by which they carried cement bags from RD-112 P.B. to the site of 2-P.B. The fifth set of the witnesses contains the statements of Girdhari Singh and Man Phoolram, who were the contractors, to whom the contract for construction of the water-courses were given. They have stated that the cement supplied from the Stores of RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-112 P.B. was not the cement of good quality and it can be said that it is not the cement even. They have stated that the cement supplied from the Stores of RD-66 B.L.D. and RD-112 P.B. was not the cement of good quality and it can be said that it is not the cement even. The last set of evidence collected by the prosecution, contains twenty-one witnesses viz., Mohanlal Sharma, N.S. Gchlot, Karinisingh, Gouri Shankar Dave, Satvendra Kumar Sanghi, Jwala Prasad Mathur, Pyarelal Meena, Mithusingh, Brij Mohan, Prem Prakash Soni, Bhanu Shekhar Bissa, Kistoora Ram, Harish Banwari, Prem Prasad Sharma, Rameshwar Lal Prajapat, Harish Chandra Gupta, Ugamsingh, Mahesh Chandra, P.D. Prajapat, Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal and B.S. Ranawar, who are the employees of the department. These witnesses have stated to the effect that at the relevant time, Shri Harisingh Bhati was the Executive Engineer of the Division and under whose control, the Stores of RD-112 P.B. and RD-66 B.L.D. are situated and it was he who on August 5/6 1981, issued work orders No. 13 and 14 and gave carriage contract to M/s Jaikarni General Stores, Bikaner. The work order No. 14 dated August, 5, 1981, was with respect to carrying of 10,000 bags of cement to the Store of RD-112 P.B. and work order No. 13 dated August 6, 1981, was with respect of carrying 9940 bags, of cement to be carried from Lalgarh Railway Station to Stores, of RD-66 B.L.D. These witnesses have further stated that Jaspal Suri was the Assistant Engineer and Ramesh Kumar and Praveen Kumar were the Junior Engineers posted at the relevant time at the Stores of RD-112 P.B. and Hukamsingh was the Chowkidar at the Stores, while Mukat Bihari Lal Mathur, Assistant Engineer, Shaukat Ali, Junior Engineer and Mustaq, Chowkidar were posted at the Stores at RD-66 B.L.D. Ballar Sub-Division No. 4. These witnesses have, also, proved the M.B. prepared by them and the slips. 10, 000, bags of cement were carried to RD-112 P.B. between December 26, 1981 to January 27, 1982 by slip No. 1 to 40 by Indersingh and his partner while 9940 bags of cement were carried to the Stores of RD-66 B.L.D. vide slips No. 41 to 77 between February 1, 1982 to May 2, 82, by the Udaipur Cement Works while the building material was found in these two stores. The bags were taken by the Chowkidars Mustaq and Hukam Singh, Even the receipt issued by the Shaukat Ali asking. The bags were taken by the Chowkidars Mustaq and Hukam Singh, Even the receipt issued by the Shaukat Ali asking. Mustaq to give good quality of cement clearly shows that all these persons had the knowledge that the building material in the place of the cement has been brought in the stores. It can not be said, at this stage, that whether they were negligent with regard to their duties or they connived and participated in the crime. At this stage there is prima facie evidence to proceed-with against the petitioners. 11. At the time of framing the charges, the enquiry of the Court is limited and the Court has to decide whether the facts emerging from the record and the documents collected by the investigating agency constitute the offences with which the accused have been charged: At this stage, the Court has only to see the broad aspect of the case and the close, critical and meticulous scrutiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. The Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence. A strong suspicion at this stage is sufficient to proceed-with and to frame charges against the accused! After a careful consideration of the material available on record, I am of the view that prima facie the material for framing the charges against the accused-petitioners for which they have been charged by the learned Special Judge, exist in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected of this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to discuss and scrutinise all the evidence available on record to see; whether the evidence collected by the prosecution constitutes the offence with which they have been charges, because if that may be done at this stage then it may prejudice the case of the petitioners and it will amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. The Court, at, this stage, by evaluating the evidence on record has to simply stisfy itself whether prima facie there is some material exist on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioners, 12. The Court, at, this stage, by evaluating the evidence on record has to simply stisfy itself whether prima facie there is some material exist on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioners, 12. In this view of the matter, I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is sufficient material on record, on the basis of which the charges against the accused, for which they have been charges by the learned Special Judge, can be framed and the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioners under the aforesaid Section. 13. Consequently, all these six miscellaneous petitions filed by the accused petitioners under Section 482 Cr.PC, are dismissed as having no merit.