K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petition filed under S. 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in FIR R. C. N. 10 (A)/2000 on the file of the C. B. I. Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore,during 18-1-1999 to 21-8-1999 in the Sponsored Section and also worked as the Executive Producer of the Dooradarshan in a different section from 31-7-1998 to 22-12-1999. The work tenure of the petitioner between 18-1-1999 and 20-8-1999 and from 8-11-1999 to 21-12-1999 as the Director in the Sponsored Section has become the subject matter of the chargesheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under S. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 along with the offence of the conspiracy punishable under S. 120 (B) of the IPC. The C. B. I. has arrayed 7 accused persons. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the F. I. R. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of the prosecution that a Sponsored Programme Lux Top 10 for telecast on Doordarshan Bangalore was made from 12-10-1998 onwards and was an on going programme till the registration of the case against accused. The accused No. 1 P. S. Palani Swamy the former Director of Doordarshan working in the Sponsored Section during the year 1998 and as Director during his period the illegal telecast of the programme was approved by accepting the rates contrary to the approved rates and thereby causing loss to the Doordarshan. Accused-2 V. Appa Rao who succeeded Accused-1 and during his time, the telecast of disputed programme was continued at a low rates contrary to the scheduled telecast rates. The allegation against Accused 2 to 4 are that after the telecast was permitted, they succeeded to the office of Director, Doordarshan,bangalore despite knowledge that the rates charged for the telecast of the programme is contrary to the scheduled rates allowed the telecast of the programme without initiating appropriate action of cancelling the programme and intimating the authorities. Thereby it is alleged that they have tacitly colluded with the other accused and allowed the programme to be continued charging low rates causing loss to the Doordarshan. Accused 5 and 6 are the Producer and the liaison. Agency who got the contract approved through A. 1. ( 4 ) THE CBI, Bangalore registered the case, conducted the investigation. Thereby it is alleged that they have tacitly colluded with the other accused and allowed the programme to be continued charging low rates causing loss to the Doordarshan. Accused 5 and 6 are the Producer and the liaison. Agency who got the contract approved through A. 1. ( 4 ) THE CBI, Bangalore registered the case, conducted the investigation. The petitioner who is Accused-4 being aggrieved by registration of the case has filed the present petition for quashing of the proceedings against him to direct the discontinuation of the further investigation in the matter against him as he is not guilty of any offence and there is no material warranting of a registration of a case and continuation of an investigation. ( 5 ) THE C. B. I. has contested the case. The Investigation Officer has filed objections to the documents filed by the petitioner and also filed objections to the material averments made by the petitioner. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has produced as many as five documents are produced along with an affidavit dated 18-8-2001. It is the contention of the petitioner that the approval of the telecast of the programme was made during the tenure of accused No. 1 and in the scheme of the functioning of the Dooradarshan, all contracts of telecast have to be processed and sent to Director General, Doordarshan, Delhi and whatever the terms and conditions including the rates for the telecast and whatever the rates suggested and proposed by Accused-1 were in fact approved by the Director General of Doordarshan, Delhi. Therefore, that he had very little scope to object and discontinue the telecast of the programme. It is also submitted that by a letter produced at document No. 8 that the approval of the rates proposed and charged were in fact approved by the Director of Doordarshan, Delhi and also with effect from 15-10-1998. There has been a change in the tariff schedule. These contentions are taken up by the petitioner based on the documents at D. 5 to D. 8 produced along with the affidavit. ( 6 ) IN reply to the affidavit, objections are filed by the Investigation Officer contending that the documents produced are concocted and that an enquiry has to be held by the Investigation agency about the genuineness and the authenticity of the documents. ( 6 ) IN reply to the affidavit, objections are filed by the Investigation Officer contending that the documents produced are concocted and that an enquiry has to be held by the Investigation agency about the genuineness and the authenticity of the documents. In para 4 of the reply to the affidavit dated 16-8-2001, the investigation officer reiterates that the case made out against the petitioner is not that he is responsible for the approval of the telecast at low rates but the case against the petitioner was that during his tenure he did not initiate any action for discontinuing or cancelling the telecast and not informing the higher authorities about the irregularities of the contract and also contends that the petitioner has conspired with the private persons to show undue favour in continuing the telecast. ( 7 ) THE theroy of conspiracy put forth by the C. B. I. appears to be tall story to be digested. It was during the tenure of the accused in the year 1998, the programme was already approved. The rest of the Directors who succeeded Accused-1 functioned as Directors from the time when the telecast was continued. The offence of conspiracy under S. 120 (A) is defined thus : "120-A Definition of criminal con- spriracy :- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspirach. " provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offecne shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof". From the narration of facts put forth by the prosecution, it cannot be inferred even faintly that there has been an agreement between Accused 1 to Accused 4 and the other accused inter se, to do any alleged illegal act. Each one of the accused worked as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore at different points of time and none of them worked together. Their posting as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore, is an official posting. There is a very little chance of meeting of minds to infer any conspiracy on the part of accused persons in approving or allowing the telecast. Each one of the accused worked as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore at different points of time and none of them worked together. Their posting as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore, is an official posting. There is a very little chance of meeting of minds to infer any conspiracy on the part of accused persons in approving or allowing the telecast. Therefore, by any measure it becomes difficult to accept the theory of conspiracy to bind Accused 1 to Accused 4 together for committing the offences. ( 8 ) FOR convenient reference, the provisions of S. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the Act) are reproduced here under : 13. Therefore, by any measure it becomes difficult to accept the theory of conspiracy to bind Accused 1 to Accused 4 together for committing the offences. ( 8 ) FOR convenient reference, the provisions of S. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the Act) are reproduced here under : 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct -, (A) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accepts or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in S. 7; or (B) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (C) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other preson so to do ; or (D) if he, - (i) by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuiniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (E) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. By close reading of the provisions of law and the facts put forth by C. B. I. , it does not any where indicate that the acts alleged can fit into any of the defined acts or omissions which constitute offence under S. 13 of the Act. The contention of the C. B. I. against the petitioner is that while he was working as the Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore, he was aware of the telecast of the disputed programme and was aware of the rates charged for the telecast which was obviously not in confirmity of the scheduled and prescribed rates. It is said that he should have initiated action for suspending the programme and informed the higher authorities about the illegalities in the telecast of the programme. In not doing so, the petitioner is said to have caused loss to the organisation by his inaction. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid material facts at the cost of repetition I would say that it would not fit into any of the acts and omissions which are defined as an offence under S. 13 of the Act. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he had taken any undue favour or illegal gratification for allowing this disputed telecast. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has produced document No. 8 by his affidavit dated 18-8-2001 whereunder there is a reference of approval of the programme and the modified tariff for telecast of the programmes of different categories is also communicated which is effective from 15-10-1998. The modified rates effective from 15-10-1998 is far low when compared to the disputed approved rate let alone the earlier schedule rates. The disputed telecast commenced just three days prior to the new schdeule rates which came with effect from 15-10-1998. Therefore by the date when the petitioner was functioning as a Director, the modified rates were in force and they were quite far less than the approved rate for the disputed programme. ( 10 ) IN reply to the averments, the Investigation Officer has contended that the modified rates effective from 15-10-1998 does not apply to Super-A File Based programmes and that the modified rates apply to Super A category. However, the contention of the Investigation agency does not appear to be correct. ( 10 ) IN reply to the averments, the Investigation Officer has contended that the modified rates effective from 15-10-1998 does not apply to Super-A File Based programmes and that the modified rates apply to Super A category. However, the contention of the Investigation agency does not appear to be correct. The rate card of the Doordarshan is produced and the details of the disputed programme discloses that the spot time allotted for programme is 8 to 8. 30 p. m. on Modays with 52 episodes and the said material fits into Super A category of the Doordarshan Commercial rate card. Any programme film based sponsored between 7 to 8. 30 p. m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday are categorised as Super A programme. In the present case, the programme to be telecasted was between 8 and 8. 30 p. m. Therefore it becomes clear that the modified rates apply to the case on hand. There might be a technical flaw in allowing the telecast for about 3 days before the modified rates came to be effective. However, at the time when the petitioner was working, the modified rates was very much in force. Therefore, it cannot be said or attributed to the petitioner that he acted dishonestly in allowing the telecast of the film on the rates much lower than the scheduled rates. During the period he was working, the rates charged for the programme was also modified. It is common in competitive commercial dealings that whenever the tarrifs are modified the benefit of concession would be given to the current and running programmes. In that view, I find that petitioner cannot held guilty of an offence under S. 13 of the Act and so also for an offence of conspriracy for the reasons discussed above. There is no faintest prima facie material to hold the petitioner guilty of an offence under S. 13 of the Act for an offence of conspiracy. Accordingly, i find that it is a fit case where the inherent power has to be exercised and FIR registered against the petitioner to be quashed. It is directed that the further investigation against the petitioner be stopped. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .