JUDGEMENT -D.G. DESHPANDE, J. :---Both these revision applications are arising out of same order dated 20-12-1991 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay rejecting the prayer and request of the accused applicant for discharge in Special Case No. 9 of 1987 and holding that the charges levelled against them cannot be said to be groundless. 2.I heard Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr. Hudlikar for the applicants and Mr. Borulkar for the State. All the accused applicants were charge-sheeted at the instance of A.C.B. F.S.I. Cell Bombay under sections 120B, 109, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 A., 417, 420 and 420 r.w. 511 of the I.P.C. and section 5(1) (d) r/w section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. The charge-sheet is a outcome of the investigation in C.R. No. 12 of 1984, A.C.B. F.S.I. Cell Bombay. Accused No. 1 Shri. P.D. Hawal was at relevant time working as Superintendent, City Survey and Land Records. Accused No. 2 Ananta Landage was working as Record Keeper, Accused No. 3 Vijay Babu Raut was working as Revenue Inspector in City Survey and Land Records. Bombay. Accused No. 2 and 3 were working under accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 Jayantilal Lalchand Shah and accused No. 5 Chandrakant Mulchand Shah are builders. Accused No. 6 R.B. Gudal was architect and accused No. 7 was working as Sub Engineer building proposal in Bombay Municipal Corporation and accused No. 8 was Executive Engineer, Building Proposal in Bombay Municipal Corporation. 3.It appears from the order of the learned Special Judge that the accused Nos. 2 ,3 and 4 filed their applications for discharge and the rest of the accused supported that applications and also claimed discharge. Ld. Special P.P. filed his reply to the applications of the accused. It appears that the Ld. Counsel for the accused raised as many grounds as were available to them for claiming discharge. It also appears that they took the Special Judge through each and every page and document of the chargesheet on which the prosecution had relied upon. Ld. Special P.P. filed his reply to the applications of the accused. It appears that the Ld. Counsel for the accused raised as many grounds as were available to them for claiming discharge. It also appears that they took the Special Judge through each and every page and document of the chargesheet on which the prosecution had relied upon. It also appears that the discharge applications were argued as if the accused wanted the learned Special Judge to consider each and every angle and prospect of the prosecution case and the defence and not only for the discharge of the accused but also giving the clean chit regarding their non involvement in any of the offences and acquittal from the case. It also appears from the record that the accused tried to not only to scan the evidence but also required the learned Special Judge to go thoroughly, minutely, in detail and at length with each and every allegation of the prosecution and each and every document in support. 4.It is from this view of the matter that the learned Special Judge was required to give an order running into 204 pages rejecting the prayer for discharge. I, therefore, questioned both the counsel when they started their arguments that if the Court is required to give an order running into more than 200 pages at the time of the discharge, then this itself was an indication that the case against the accused was not liable to be thrown away prima facie. To this query of mine, none of the Counsel could give any satisfactory reply, obviously because at the time of framing charge or considering applications of the accused for discharge the Court has to find out whether there is any prima facie case or not and is not supposed to hold a thorough and detailed enquiry and scrutiny of each and every document. The words prima facie case cannot and would not mean a duty of the Court to filter each and every allegation by strict legal scrutiny which is done at the time of conclusion of the trial and delivering judgement on merits. The words prima facie case cannot and would not mean a duty of the Court to filter each and every allegation by strict legal scrutiny which is done at the time of conclusion of the trial and delivering judgement on merits. 5.Further the main charge against the accused is of conspiracy, to take advantage of certain manipulations, alterations and changes in the Government records which ultimately was going to favour and benefit the accused by increasing the F.S.I. of the property over which they were going to construct a huge building by about 600 to 700 sq. yards. Considering the location of the property at Malbar Hill, N.D. Road, the price of this increased F.S.I. would have gone to crores of rupees even at the time when the chargesheet was filed. 6.In view of these important aspects the revision applications are liable to be dismissed. Secondly, the charge of conspiracy cannot be proved by direct evidence, and as such, the arguments of both the Counsel that their respective accused were not responsible in the manipulation , alterations of the Government documents, cannot be accepted at this stage, because, if the accused are beneficiaries of that alterations and if the charges of conspiracy are levelled against them along with other main charges, then, this is a matter requiring the accused to face the trial. Thirdly, a perusal of the bulky and lengthy order passed by the learned Special Judge shows that the case involves scores of documents and Government records relied upon by the accused for their discharge and relied upon by the prosecution in support of their case. Scrutiny of these documents requires oral evidence of the concerned and important prosecution witness. I, therefore, do not find any reasons to interfere with this well reasoned, cogent and convincing order and consequently revision applications are liable to, be dismissed. 7.The Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed that since the case against the accused is pending from 1985 the Ld. Special Court be directed to expedite the matter. Even otherwise as the matter is more than 11 years old, the Special Court is likely to take it for final hearing and trial, and therefore, I accept the request of ld. 7.The Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed that since the case against the accused is pending from 1985 the Ld. Special Court be directed to expedite the matter. Even otherwise as the matter is more than 11 years old, the Special Court is likely to take it for final hearing and trial, and therefore, I accept the request of ld. Counsel of the accused in this regard and pass the following order :- ORDER Criminal Revision Application No. 45 of 1992 and Criminal Revision Application No. 91 of 1992 are dismissed, and the matter is remanded back to the Special Judge, Greater Bombay for proceeding with the trial according to law against the accused. The Ld. Special Judge is directed to give priority to this case (Special Case No. 9 of 1987) by expediting the trial and to complete it within the period of nine months. Accused are directed to remain present before the Special Court on 27th Jan. 1997. Applications dismissed. *****