JUDGMENT 1. - These petitions have been preferred against the order dated 22.2.95 passed by the learned Special Judge for Anti Corruption Department Case, Jaipur, by which he ordered to frame charge for the offences under sections 420, 120-B, 471 and 468 IPC and Under section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and the charges framed on 14.3.95 in pursuance thereof against the accused petitioners. 2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts are that in the basis of a news paper item publishing in `Hindustan Times' dated 31st July, 1984 regarding the irregularities in purchase of Portable Stone Crusher Shri G.C. Rai, Dy.S.P ACD, Bundi after conducting preliminary enquiry submitted report dated 23.3.87, whereupon FIR No. 33/1987 for offences Under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC and under section 5(1 )(a) with Section 5(2) of the Act was registered at ACD Out Post, Bundi against petitioner R.S. Khandelwal. Executive Engineer Irrigation Department, Sub-Division, Tonk. However after completion of investigation, a challan was filed on 9.6.92 in the court of learned Special Judge, ACD cases, Jaipur. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that sometime in March, 1979 they were party to a Criminal conspiracy to defraud the Government, that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy petitioner R.S. Khandelwal floated a short term notice dated 3.3.79 inviting tenders for the purchase of one portable stone crusher and its screening plant of jaw crusher, whereupon as many as eleven tenders were received by the stipulated dated i.e. 19.3.79. The lowest offer was of a firm from Gujarat. The next lower tender was that of M/s. Forgewell and Engineering Corporation, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 63,990/- with the stipulation to supply the goods within seven days and a one years guarantee against any manufacturing defect from the date of supply. Petitioner R.S. Khandelwal, after scrutiny of the tenders, by his letter dated 30.3.79 recommended to the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Ajmer that the tender of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation, New Delhi be accepted. The S.E. had already issued sanction for the purchase of Portable Crusher by his letter dated 8.3.79. It is alleged that the notice inviting tenders was published only in news paper 'Rajasthan Patrika' and that the same was not sent for publication in `Nav Bharat Times', 'Hindustan Times' wid `Rastradoot' news papers. The S.E. had already issued sanction for the purchase of Portable Crusher by his letter dated 8.3.79. It is alleged that the notice inviting tenders was published only in news paper 'Rajasthan Patrika' and that the same was not sent for publication in `Nav Bharat Times', 'Hindustan Times' wid `Rastradoot' news papers. However, it was wrongly shown in the despatch register that the Nil was also sent for publication in the aforementioned news papers. It is alleged that petitioner R.S. Khandelwal placed a purchase order with M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation on 24.3.1979 without proper budget, estimate, sanction and without identifying the quarry and the site and even without depositing the earnest money from the said firm. Thus he superseded the Government procedure and practice prevalent in the department regarding inviting and opening tenders, it is alleged that before placing the supply order with M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation, the credibility of the said firm was also not ascertained. Shri R.S. Khandelwal released 75% payment amounting to Rs. 48,852.20 in advance on the basis of the RR and consignment documents and further released the remaining 25% amounting to Rs. 14,657.40 after deducting the earnest money amount of Rs. 2000/- without testing the operation of the Crusher simply on the basis of a false certificate issued by the petitioner Om Prakash Mathur, who was at that time posted as Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), Sub-Division, Tonk and Hanuman Sahai-Mechanic. It is further alleged that the said Crusher had a crack in the chamber block of the Engine, which was detected by later on and that the said Crusher could operate only for two hours sometime in September, 1981. Subsequently in September, 1983 the said Crusher was declared surplus and the same was transferred and credited to the accounts of 'Pachna Project' for an amount of Rs. 66,519.60. It is therefore, alleged that the petitioners have committed forgery for the purpose of cheating, and cheated the State Government having entered in to a criminal conspiracy and in the capacity of a public servant dis-honestly committed offence under section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. 3. 66,519.60. It is therefore, alleged that the petitioners have committed forgery for the purpose of cheating, and cheated the State Government having entered in to a criminal conspiracy and in the capacity of a public servant dis-honestly committed offence under section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. 3. On 20.7.92, the accused petitioners filed an application before the learned Special Judge praying that report of the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) in respect of the enquiry conducted by him regarding the purchase of the said crusher, the reply of the State Government filed before the Public Accounts Committee as also the report of the Public Accounts Committee dated 5.2.92 regarding the alleged irregularity/illegality for the purchase of the Portable Crusher be sent for. The Public Prosecutor for ACD did not oppose the said application. The learned Presiding Officer by his order dated 20.7.92 allowed the said application sent for the aforementioned record. In compliance thereof, the enquiry report of Shri B.P. Bhatnagar, Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Rajasthan, Jaipur, the reply of the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan submitted before the Public Accounts Committee regarding the audit objection para No. 5.4 raised by the Accountant General, (Controller of Accounts), and the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in respect of the purchase of the Portable Crusher in question were submitted by the Assistant Secretary, Irrigation Department. Government of Rajasthan before the trial court. 4. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties, by his impugned order dated 22.2.95 held that prima facie a case for offences Under sections 420, 120-B, 471 & 468 IPC, and under Section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act was made out against the petitioners and ordered for framing charges against them and in pursuance thereof on 14.3.95 charges for the said offences were framed against them. Aggrieved by the said impugned order and charge, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions, which are being disposed of by a common order. 5. I have heard Shri D.K. Jain and Shri R.N. Khandelwal, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.K. Chakravorthy, the learned PP at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. 6. Aggrieved by the said impugned order and charge, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions, which are being disposed of by a common order. 5. I have heard Shri D.K. Jain and Shri R.N. Khandelwal, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.K. Chakravorthy, the learned PP at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. 6. It has been strenuously canvassed by Sarva Shri Jain and Khandelwal and Jain that from the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer, there is not a fringe of evidence either oral or documentary even to suggest that any criminal conspiracy was hatched by the petitioners to de-fraud the Government in the matter of the purchase of the Crusher, that neither any pecuniary loss occurred to the Government nor any unlawful gain accrued to the petitioners, that the short term notice inviting tenders was duly ratified and approved by the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Ajmer, that the tender of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation was accepted by the Superintending Engineer, that the Chief Engineer, who conducted the enquiry of this matter has clearly exonerated all officials and held that no irregularity was committed. Besides this, the Secretary, Irrigation Department vide letter dated 30.8.92 to the Accountant General, Rajasthan as also before the Public Accounts Committee in the year 1982 had specifically intimated that no irregularity was committed in the purchase of the said Portable Crusher and the audit draft para of Accountant General was dropped. Still then on the basis of some news item published on dated 31.10.84, the Dy.S.P ACD, Bundi registered a case and after a long lapse of eight years submitted the challan and the Government malafidely with ulterior motive and in arbitrary exercise of power accorded the sanction for prosecution against petitioners, against whom even prima facie no case is made out. It has been vehemently asserted that the learned Special Judge has committed an illegality as also error in exercise of his jurisdiction in not considering the aforementioned documents, which were placed before him by Competent Authority prior to the hearing of arguments of the charge, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, prayed that the impugned order and the charges framed against the petitioners be set-aside and they be dis-charged. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, prayed that the impugned order and the charges framed against the petitioners be set-aside and they be dis-charged. 7. On the other hand, Shri Chakravarthy, the learned PP has submitted that the learned Special Judge after considering the challan and documents appended thereto and after giving the prosecution and the petitioners an opportunity of being heard has rightly opined that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and thus has not committed any illegality or error in exercise of his jurisdiction. He has contended that it was not at all necessary for the learned Special Judge to have considered the reply of the State Government submitted before the Accountant General and the Public Accounts Committee, the recommendations of the PAC and the report of the Chief Engineer (Irrigation), because the prosecution did not rely upon those documents and as such those were also not submitted alongwith the charge-sheet. According to him these documents can only be considered after the prosecution evidence is completed and the accused petitioners are required to enter into their defence. 8. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. A careful perusal of the record of the lower court reveals that on 20.7.92 applications for summoning the reply of the State Government Irrigation Department submitted before the Public Accounts Committee, the enquiry report of Shri B.P Bhatnagar Chief Engineer (Irrigation) and the 38th Memorandum of the Public Accounts Committee dated 5.2.92 pertaining to the purchase of the disputed Crusher, was filed by the petitioners. The relevancy of those documents was also clearly mentioned in details. The learned PP did not oppose those applications. The Special Judge, therefore, allowed the said applications and ordered to call for the said record and in pursuance thereof the Assistant Secretary (Irrigation), Government of Rajasthan sent to the trial court the original report of Shri B.P Bhatnagar, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and the copies of the final reply sent by the secretary (Irrigation) to the Accountant General and the Public Accounts Committee and the report of the PAC. Those documents are available on the record of the trial court. A perusal of the impugned order firmly establishes that the learned Special Judge has not cared to consider the aforementioned relevant documents and has just ignored them. 9. Those documents are available on the record of the trial court. A perusal of the impugned order firmly establishes that the learned Special Judge has not cared to consider the aforementioned relevant documents and has just ignored them. 9. The Chief Engineer, who conducted a detailed enquiry, in his report has opined that the purchase of the said Portable Crusher cannot be rated as an irregularity, moreso when the estimates bore the sanction of the Chief Engineer (Irrigation). He has opined that though the lowest offer was of some firm from Gujarat, which did not provide any guarantee period, the delivery period was within four weeks and the payment terms were 95% against documents through bank. The rate offered by the Gujarat firm was around Rs. 50,853/- for works (Township), whereas the tender of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation, the second lowest was for Rs. 63,990/-. The Chief Engineer further mentioned that the XEN (R.S. Khandelwal) in his forwarding letter dated 20.3.79 to the Superintending Engineer informed that after careful scrutiny of the tenders, the second lowest tenders of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation was recommended because of the guarantee period of one year for manufacturing defect and delivery was to be made at Tonk within seven days. The payment conditions were also easier then the Gujarat firm which, was 75% against documents on despatch and the balance 25% within 30 days of receipt of supply. He also mentioned in his letter that those tenders were considered in the light of over all conditions, need of machine and specifications. The Chief Engineer further opined in his report that the Superintending Engineer acted in good faith in view of more favourable stipulations for payment given by M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation vis-a-vis other firms and accepted the recommendations of the XEN The Chief Engineer has however mentioned in his report that the Superintending Engineer can be said to have exceeded his power to some extent and he ought to have sought ex-post facto approval. The Chief Engineer however has not held that the XEN (R.S. Khandelwal) or petitioner Om Prakash committed any irregularity/illegality. The Chief Engineer however has not held that the XEN (R.S. Khandelwal) or petitioner Om Prakash committed any irregularity/illegality. The Chief Engineer has further mentioned in his report that the disputed documents sent by the supplier i.e. M/s. Forgewell also included a test certificate dated 21.12.78 of an engineer from a test house, that the despatch material was actually received on 18.4.79 and even if no prior inspection was carried out, it cannot be concluded that the Superintending Engineer did not act in good faith. It was also mentioned in the report by the Chief Engineer that a minor crack in the Chamber Block was detected on 17.11.81 because the oil was leaking from the chamber which was later on rectified at a cost of Rs. 1,200/- and that amount was adjusted against the tender amount of Rs. 2000/- of the firm. The Chief Engineer also mentioned in his report that the debiting of part expenditure of Crusher to Shivdaspura Minor Project is not an irregularity which may call for fixation of any responsibilities and that the same could be set right even now by writing back the small amount of Rs. 16,670/- from Shivdaspura to Galwa, where the modernisation work was still in progress. The Chief Engineer, therefore, opined that the matter did not call for further action and should be closed. 10. This is not in dispute that the Accountant General while auditing the accounts in respect of the purchase of the Portable Crusher in question pointed out certain irregularity/illegality vide its audit para No. 5.4. The Secretary (Irrigation Department) Govt, of Rajasthan vide its letter No. F. 16/(12)/lrg./8l dated 17.8.83 as also in its reply submitted before the Public Accounts Committee of the Rajasthan Assembly in the year 1984 informed that the purchase of the Crusher was made after identifying the queries and approval of the crushing programme for the lining of the canals and modernisation thereof in the Marshi and Galwa projects for which the requirement of about 50000 cubic meter grit was estimated. It was pointed out by the State Government that 75% advance of the purchase amount was released by the department on the basis of RP and documents of despatch of the consignment because initially the firms had demanded 95% of the advance of the purchase amount but later on agreed to accept 75% of advance. It was pointed out by the State Government that 75% advance of the purchase amount was released by the department on the basis of RP and documents of despatch of the consignment because initially the firms had demanded 95% of the advance of the purchase amount but later on agreed to accept 75% of advance. The Superintending Engineer considering the said terms and conditions to be justified gave sanction to release 75% amount to the firm. It was also replied by the State Government that though it was stipulated to send some officer for inspecting the Crusher before releasing the advance money but since the time was short and the supplier had despatched the consignment vide RR dated 20.3.79 alongwith the test report of an Engineer of M/s. Simpson and Co., Madras, which manufactures Parkinson Engine, 75% advance was released. However before releasing the remaining ^5% amount, the Assistant Engineer of the Department had certified that the Crusher was of the prescribed specification and that on inspection, the said Crusher was found to be in good condition. Still then after retaining the amount of Rs. 2000/- of the firm, the remaining amount was released to it. The State Government categorically denied that there was any crack in the head of the Crusher and that the supplier firm was a non- existent firm. On the other hand, it asserted that it was registered as a Small Scale Industry vide registration No. 654/18546/78. It was also asserted by the State Government in its reply, that the allegation that the supplier firm was non-existent was mis-conceived. The State Government in its reply reiterated that on 16th & 17th September, 1981 the mechanic of the supplier firm had examined the Crusher in presence of the officers of the Sub-Division, that no crack in the head of the Crusher was detected. On the other hand it was found that oil was a minor crack in the Chamber from which the oil was leaking and that the said defect was rectified for an amount of Rs. 1200/-, which was adjusted from the security amount of the supplier firm. The State Government also intimated the then Chief Engineer Kailash Roop Rai, could not complete the enquiry due to his superannuation of 3.4.84. 11. 1200/-, which was adjusted from the security amount of the supplier firm. The State Government also intimated the then Chief Engineer Kailash Roop Rai, could not complete the enquiry due to his superannuation of 3.4.84. 11. From the report of the Public Accounts Committee vide para 376, it transpires, that the PAC recommended that the enquiry be got conducted in the matter and the report be submitted. 12. Thereupon the State Government got a denovo enquiry conducted by Shri B.P. Bhatnagar, the then Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Rajasthan, who submitted his report in the year 1985 and recommended that no case was made out and the matter was closed. The draft audi paras of the Accountant General regarding purchase of crusher in question were also dropped in the year 1985. 13. Now the vital question which arise for my consideration is whether the learned Special Judge was justified in ignoring the aforementioned documents, which were relevant to the matter in dispute and which were produced by the Assistant Secretary (Irrigation Department) Govt, of Rajasthan. Apparently the genuineness of the aforementioned document cannot be disputed. Section 227 & 239 Cr. RC. enjoined upon the Sessions Judge/Magistrate that if he upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing submissions of the accused and the prosecution consider that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or that the charge against the accused petitioner is ground less then he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing. Section 228 and 240 Cr.P.C. deal with the framing of the charge in Sessions cases and warrant cases and proclaim that if, after such consideration and hearing the Sessions Judge/Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then he shall frame charge, which shall be read over and explained to the accused and shall record his plea. 14. Section 294 Cr.RC. reads as under: "294. No formal proof of certain documents:- (1) Where any document is filed before any court for the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature, of the person to whom it purports to be signed." A careful perusal of Section 294 Cr.RC. therefore, indicates that were any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, particulars of such document shall be included in a list and not of admission or denial regarding the genuineness of each such document shall be obtained from the prosecution and the accused and where the genuineness of a document is not disputed, then such document may be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Cr.PC. without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. It is abundantly apparent that the Legislature has not put any limitation as to at what stage the provisions of Section 294 are to be followed. When the Legislature has provided under Sub-section (3) that once the document is admitted, it can be used in any proceedings besides enquiry and trial, it is clear that when the genuineness of the document is not denied or challenged, it can be used at the stage of enquiry or trial, i.e. even before hearing of arguments for framing of charges. If such document is admitted and its genuineness is not challenged before framing of the charge, then such document becomes an evidence not only for the purpose of trial but with regard to the framing of charge also. 15. Section 294 Cr.RC. has been enacted with a view that the prosecution evidence may be shortened and where the genuineness of document filed by the party is not disputed then such document against the petitioner read in evidence in any enquiry or trial or proceeding without the proof of the signature of the person, who is purported to have signed it, unless, the court in its discretion requires such signatures to be proved. 16. In Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1977 RCC 137) a charge-sheet was filed by the C.B.I. Under section 165 IPC before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases. 16. In Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1977 RCC 137) a charge-sheet was filed by the C.B.I. Under section 165 IPC before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases. Rajasthan, Jaipur against the petitioner Guman Singh who was posted as Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. The C.B.I. did not file certain letters of correspondence entered between the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police. ACD, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Before the arguments for framing the charge were heard, as may as eight original letters of the said correspondence were filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Special Judge and it was contended that in view of those letters the charge against him was ground-less. The Special Judge overruled the objection raised by the petitioner against taking of cognizance of an offence punishable under section 165 IPC and ordered for framing charge against him. Hon'ble K D. Sharma J., as he then was, interpreting the provisions of Section 294 Cr PC held that there was no bar in taking into consideration the documents filed by the accused before framing of charge at the stage contemplated under section 239 Cr.PC and held that if the accused at that stage refers to a document which has an important bearing in the question whether the charge against him is groundless, the Court trying him should look into such document and arrive a correct conclusion. 17. In L.K. Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan, (1987 RCC 311) it has been re-iterated that by incorporating the provisions of Section 294 Cr.PC it is abundantly apparent that the intention-of the Legislature is that the valuable time of the court should not be wasted in a case where genuineness of a document is not in dispute. Therefore, the court should be too cautious in getting the admission or denial by the prosecution or the accused at the initial stage, so that unnecessary evidence is not led by the parties and the trial is not unnecessarily protracted and harassment to the rival party is minimised. It was further held that a document, which has not been filed alongwith the charge-sheet, can be filed by the accused even at the time of hearing arguments for framing charge and if the genuineness of such a document is not challenged then such a document must be considered by the trial court and his discharge on the basis of such a document can be ordered. 18. 18. Therefore, in view of the unambiguous, explicit and clear provision of Section 294 Cr.PC. and the law laid down in Guman Singh and L.K. Sharma's cases (supra), I do not find any force in the contention of the learned PP that the afore mentioned documents, which were sent for the Special Judge on the applications of the petitioners cannot be considered at the stage of hearing of arguments for framing charge and that such documents can only be read in evidence after the prosecution has closed its evidence and the accused is called upon to enter upon his evidence and produce his witness because, such an interpretation of law will make the object of provisions of Section 294 Cr.PC. nugatory and otiose. In my considered opinion, the learned Special Judge was duty bound to have considered the replies filed by the State Government to the Accountant General, Public Accounts Committee, the recommendations of the PAC and the report of Shri B.P Bhatnagar, the then Chief Engineer, the genuineness whereof was not disputed and thus he has committed a patent illegality in ignoring those material documents, which have certainly caused substantial prejudice to the petitioners. 19. In ordinary circumstances, I would have quashed the order framing charge and remitted the matter to the learned Special Judge with the direction to consider the aforementioned documents and then to pass necessary order in accordance with law but, since this incident is alleged to have occurred in the year 1979 an more than 17 years have elapsed. Moreover the allegations incorporated in the charge-sheet have been negatived by the State Government in their replies submitted to the Accountant General and Public Accounts Committee. The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), who conducted a detailed enquiry has opined that no further action was called for. Therefore, I propose to same, discuss and assess the evidence collected by the investigation officer in this case. 20. From a careful perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents appended thereto it is fairly established that petitioner R.S. Khandelwal, who was at that time posted as Executive Engineer (Irrigation); Sub-Division, Tonk, had floated a short term notice for inviting tenders for the purchase of a Portable Crusher alongwith its accessories. He sought permission from the Superintending Engineer for issuing such a short term notice, who accorded necessary sanction and ratified the action of the petitioner R.S. Khandelwal vide his letter dated 8.3.79. He sought permission from the Superintending Engineer for issuing such a short term notice, who accorded necessary sanction and ratified the action of the petitioner R.S. Khandelwal vide his letter dated 8.3.79. As many as eleven tenders were received by the stipulated date i.e. 19.3.79, which were opened by the XEN and other members of the Committee. The entries made in the tender register were signed by all the officials after comparing the offers and terms and conditions. The second lowest tender offer by M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation Ltd., was considered to be suitable. The petitioner R.S. Khandelwal recommended to the Superintending Engineering to accept that tender. The Superintending Engineer accepted the said recommendation and petitioner R.S. Khandelwal issued the purchase order dated 24.3.79. Those tenders were filed by different firms situated in different towns. The Chief Engineer in his report, as also the State Government in its reply have opined that inviting, opening and acceptance of the tender was not irregular or illegal. The Chief Engineer however opined that the Superintending Engineer ought to have procured the approval from the higher authorities but for this lapse on the part of Superintending Engineer, the petitioner R.S. Khandelwal and Om Prakash Mathur AEN cannot be held liable. This is also not in dispute that the said crusher was lateron transferred and debited to `Panchna Project' at a cost of Rs. 66,519.60 p. The State Government in its replies has also intimated that the despatch documents submitted by the supplier also included a test certificate of an Engineer of a reputed house and that there was no crack in the head of the engine. On the other hand, a minor crack in the Chamber was detected, from which oil was leaking and that the said defect was got rectified for an amount of Rs. 1200/-, and that the said amount was deducted from the security deposit of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation. This is also not in dispute that the said crusher and its accessories were in working order and that those were lateron transferred to another project. 1200/-, and that the said amount was deducted from the security deposit of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation. This is also not in dispute that the said crusher and its accessories were in working order and that those were lateron transferred to another project. In the charge-sheet and the documents appended thereto, there is not a whisper or fringe of evidence from which it can be reasonably interred that the petitioner were a party to a criminal conspiracy to default the Government or to put it to an unlawful loss or to any pecuniar advantage to the supplier firm or to cheat the State Government or to forge valuable documents. 21. The learned Special Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner Om Prakash Mathur was not in picture either in floating the short term notice inviting tender or accepting the tender of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation. On the other hand, at the time of the inspection of the Crusher when petitioner Om Prakash Mathur gave a certificate to the effect that it Was according to the specifications, the petitioner R.S. Khandelwal was not present. The action of the petitioners was duly ratified by the Superintending Engineer and thereafter by the Government, who in their replies submitted to the Accountant General and the Public Accounts Committee specifically mentioned that there was no irregularity in the purchase of the crusher. Thus, from the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer it cannot be inferred, even prima facie, that the petitioner had hatched a criminal conspiracy to de-fraud the Government in the matter of purchase of the Crusher. Therefore the charge for the offence under section 120-B IPC appears to me ground-less. 22. Again neither in the charge-sheet nor in the documents annexured thereto, there is any suggestion or allegation that the petitioners committed the offences of criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants obtained for themselves or, for any other person any valuable thing or any pecuniary advantage. Thus the material ingredients constituting the offence under section 5(1 )(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Act are conspicuously missing in this case. 23. Thus the material ingredients constituting the offence under section 5(1 )(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Act are conspicuously missing in this case. 23. In Abdulla Mbhammed v. State, (U.T. of Goa, Daman and Diu) (1980 Cr.LJ (SC) 220) , a public servant and a contractor were prosecuted for the offences under section 120-B, 420, 468, 471/109 IPC and Under section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act for defrauding the Government by submitting false bills of the work done. Though the work was to be done departmentally, it was alleged that in fact the public servant got the work done through the contractor, whose tender was not accepted. It was held that by the Apex Court that though the work was got executed in flagrant disregard of the relevant Rules of the G.F.R. and even of ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of Governmental officials and contractors, in the matter of execution of works undertaken by the Government, such a disregard did not amount to any of the offences, alleged against him. 24. In the instant case, there is neither any allegation nor an iota of evidence, to prima facie show that the petitioner were paid anything by M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation or that the petitioner in any way had interest in the said supplier firm, or that they obtained for themselves or for the supplier firm any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by abusing their position or by corrupt or illegal means nor there any is evidence worth the name to suggest that any wrongful loss was caused to the Government by the petitioners by abusing their power as public servant. In such circumstances, I do not find any clear, cogent and convincing evidence collected by the Investigation Officer from which it can be reasonably inferred that the petitioners as public servants had committed an offence under section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, charge for the said offence is also not prima facie made out against any of the petitioners and the same is hereby quashed being ground less. 25. As per reply of the Government, there was a minor crack in the chamber from which the oil was leaking. This was a minor defect, which was got repaired/rectified for an amount of Rs. 1200/-. The petitioner R.S. Khandelwal was not present at that time. 25. As per reply of the Government, there was a minor crack in the chamber from which the oil was leaking. This was a minor defect, which was got repaired/rectified for an amount of Rs. 1200/-. The petitioner R.S. Khandelwal was not present at that time. The petitioner Om Prakash Mathur and Hari Ram Mechanic had inspected the Crusher. The certificate issued by the petitioner O.P Mathur was to the effect that the goods has been received in good condition and as per specifications. Petitioner R.S. Khandelwal remained XEN (Irrigation) Sub-Division, Tonk upto 3.7.79 and thereafter he was transferred His successor entered into correspondence with the supplier firm asking the latter to sent its representative. Ultimately on 16.9.81, the engine of the Crusher was tested and at that time he said minor defect having crack in the chamber was found. The supplier firm alongwith RR and despatch documents had also sent a test-check-certificate of a competent Engineer as per reply filed by the State Government and the report of the Chief Engineer. In such circumstances, on the basis of vague, incomplete and incredible evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. It cannot be inferred even prima facie that the petitioners fraudulently or dis-honestly cheated the State Government and put it to unlawful loss or that they intentionally forged any document purporting to be a valuable security or fraudulently or dis-honestly used the same as genuine document, which they knew or had reasons to believe to be a forged document. Mere breach of Rules cannot constitute any criminal offence and in the case on hand, no fraudulent or dis-honest intention on the part of the petitioners for the purchase of the Portable Crusher is discernable in view of the replies submitted by the State Government to the Accountant General Rajasthan, Public Accounts Committee and the detailed enquiry report of the Chief Engineer (Irrigation). Thus, to my mind, the learned Special Judge has committed an illegality of law as well as of fact in framing charge for the offences under sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC against the petitioners. 26. Besides this the alleged occurrence took place in March, 1979. In 1984 the State Government filed their replied to the Accountant General and the Public Accounts Committee regarding the alleged irregularities in the purchase of the Stone Crusher. In 1985 the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) after conducting the detailed enquiry submitted his report. 26. Besides this the alleged occurrence took place in March, 1979. In 1984 the State Government filed their replied to the Accountant General and the Public Accounts Committee regarding the alleged irregularities in the purchase of the Stone Crusher. In 1985 the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) after conducting the detailed enquiry submitted his report. On the basis of a news item published in Hindustan Times' on 31.7.84 the Dy.S.P, ACD, Bundi, conducted preliminary enquiry and on the basis of his report FIR was registered on 22.5.87. Thus, for a period of five years no effective enquiry was conducted. However on 24.1.92 the State Government issued prosecution sanction against the petitioners and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed in June, 1992. Thus now more than seventeen years have passed from the date of alleged incident. The petitioners have already undergone considerable amount of mental torture and agony. They have also retired from Government service long back. This delay in filing the challan has not been occasioned by any action of the petitioners. In such circumstances, their fundamental right of speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has also been violated. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no substantial and useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial in such a dead case. 27. Hence retracted from any angle, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly these petitions are allowed and the order dated 22.2 95 as also the charge framed against the petitioners on 14.3.95 by the Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur are hereby quashed and the petitioners R.S. Khandelwal and Om Prakash Mathur are discharged of the offences Under section 420, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and under section 5(1 )(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act.Petition allowed. *******