Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. These three applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment because they all arise out of same impugned order. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to these applications are that on 2.8.1991 one Harihar Choubey, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance filed an FIR (Annexure 1 in all applications) alleging therein that during preliminary inquiry it transpired that in Minor Irrigation Department at Sikandara under Minor Irrigation Division, Jamui, after sanction of estimate, contract was granted for the construction of escape wair for the following three Ahars and cement was supplied to the contractors but no contract work was done and 1821 bags of cement worth Rs. 73,000/- were misappropriated by the petitioners and other co-accused persons : (i) Tanewa Dhamna Ahar.In this work estimated cost was Rs. 49,538/- and the work was to be done in two phases and estimate was prepared by Indrasan Prasad, Junior Engineer and technical approval was granted by Sri Devashish, Assistant "Engineer and work was entrusted to one Sri Navin Kumar Singh by Uma Kant Singh, Executive Engineer (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 4538/2000) who entrusted the contract work without calling tender and 601 bags of cement on three occasions were issued to contractor but no work was done and last instalment of 400 bags of cement was given to contractor under the orders of Draweshwar Pd. Singh, Executive Engineer (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 33388/99). (ii) Naini Ahar.Estimated cost of this work was Rs. 48,300/- and this estimate was prepared by Indrasan Prasad Junior Engineer and this work was also to be done in two parts and Uma Kant Prasad one of the petitioners entrusted this work to Birendra Kumar Singh without inviting tender and Ganesh Prasad Chaudhary (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 31864/99) issued the first instalment of 125 bags of cement to contractor and thereafter another Junior Engineer, namely, co-accused Shital Prasad issued 80 bags of cement in second instalment and 400 bags in third instalment and last instalment of 400 bags was given to contractor under the orders of petitioner Draweshwar Prasad Singh. (iii) Dumaria Ahar.Estimate of this work was Rs. (iii) Dumaria Ahar.Estimate of this work was Rs. 21884/- and petitioner Uma Kant Singh without inviting tender entrusted the work to one Randhir Kumar Singh and co-accused Shital Prasad, Junior Engineer issued 120 bags, 95 bags and 400 bags in three instalments to the contractor under the orders of petitioner Draweshwar Prasad and in this way 615 bags of cement were entrusted to contractor for this work. Further, allegation in the FIR is that in all the aforesaid schemes no work was done and cement bags which were 1821 worth about Rs. 73,000/- given to all contractors were misappropriated by petitioners and co-accused persons including the contractors in connivance with each other. 3 It has been submitted that police after investigation submitted charge- sheet against the petitioners and the petitioners prayed before the Court below for discharging them but their prayer has been rejected by the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna, by the impugned order. 4. The case of petitioner Uma Kant Singh (in Cr. Misc. No. 4538/2000) is that all the three contracts were given to Adhoc Committee of beneficiaries and for giving contracts to such agencies there is no necessity of inviting any tender in view of Government Circular (Annexure 2 series). According to him, the persons to whom the work was entrusted were beneficiaries and they were members of Adhoc Committee (Annexure 3). 5. On the other hand Sri B.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, has submitted that according to this Circular which has been relied upon by petitioner Uma Kant Singh all schemes for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the schemes for earth work for a sum of Rs. 5. On the other hand Sri B.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, has submitted that according to this Circular which has been relied upon by petitioner Uma Kant Singh all schemes for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the schemes for earth work for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- were to be entrusted to non- Government Agencies such as Gram Panchayat, Co-operative Societies and Adhoc Committee in order of preference and this Circular further provides that whenever any such scheme is ready for execution the concerned officer will issue notice fixing a date for executing an agreement and starting work to Gram Panchayat and Co-operative Societies simultaneously and at the same time will try to form Adhoc Committee for the beneficiaries and in the notice to Gram Panchayat and Co-operative Societies it will be made clear that if they fail to execute the agreement within fixed time the work would be entrusted to other agencies and if both the agencies are ready to work, preference would be given to Gram Panchayat. According to him in the present case no such procedure was adopted by petitioner Uma Kant Singh. 6. The case of Draweshwar Prasad Singh, who is petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 33388/99, is that he passed order for supply of cement on the requisition of Junior Engineer, who was the Incharge of the site and at the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Engineer at Jamui Division under whom there were four divisions and the case is of 10.11.1989 when he was Incharge of Executive Engineer and it was not possible for him to go all the sites personally before passing orders for supply of cement. The case of Ganesh Prasad Chaudhary, who is petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 31864/99, is that he had only recommended for supply of 100 bags of cement to a contractor against his requisition for supply of 500 bags of cement and in a departmental proceeding in the same charge he has been exonerated (Annexure 2) and he cannot be prosecuted again for the same charge in view of principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P.S. Raje V/s. State of Bihar as reported in 1996 (9) SCC 1 : 1996 (2) East Cr C 337 (SC). 7. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Court below without assigning any reason in the impugned order, which according to them is a cryptic order, has rejected their prayer to discharge them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Vigilance Department relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. V/s. State of West Bengal, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 52 : 2000 (1) East Cr C 240 (SC), has submitted that for a Court which decides to frame charge against an accused it is not require to specify the reason for its doing so and once after considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both the parties if the Court decides to frame charge this fact itself will prima facie show that the Court has formed its opinion upon considering all materials that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. 8. So far contention on behalf of petitioner Ganesh Prasad Chaudhary that since he has been exonerated in a departmental proceeding he cannot be prosecuted for :he same charge in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.S. Raje V/s. State of Bihar, (supra) (1996 (2) East Cr C 337 (SC). I find that facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of that case because in that case apart from appellant being exonerated in a departmental proceeding the case of appellant was found fallen in more than one head of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Suppl) 1SCC 335, for quashing of a complaint/FIR. Similarly the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Jaswantlal Nathalal, AIR 1968 SC 700 , which has been relied upon by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners of Cr. Misc. Nos. Similarly the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Jaswantlal Nathalal, AIR 1968 SC 700 , which has been relied upon by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners of Cr. Misc. Nos. 33388/99 and 31864/99 is not applicable to the present case because the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of that case because in that case the petitioners after purchasing the bags of cement for use in the contract did not use in the contract work and in that circumstances it was not a case of entrustment and moreover the agency on whose behalf an another agency was entrusted the construction work did not come forward for making any grievance against the respondent. 9. The points raised by the petitioners for their discharge are based on some documents as well as some facts which according to them are in their favour. In my opinion, the petitioners will get sufficient opportunity for producing these documents and the facts during the trial before the Court below. This is not the proper stage for considering the case of defence when the prosecution is yet to examine its witnesses in support of the allegations against the petitioners. I, therefore, find no merit in these applications. In the result all the three applications are dismissed.