Judgment 1. Those who were involved in the scam had been making futile and unsuccessful attempts to scuttle the due porcess of law from the very inception and hence the case has a legacy of chequered career. 2. Suspecting scam in purchase of Police uniform and accessories, a Police case came to be registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI) against some of the top police officers in the hierarchy of the State Police administration. Jurisdiction of this Court was invoked when with some riders, first information report has been quashed. C.B.I took up the matter to the Apex Court when upholding submission of the CBI, the Apex Court directed deep probe in the matter, pursuant to which involvement of many persons had surfaced during investigation and charge sheet came to be submitted before the Special Judge, CBI, Patna to set the ball in motion and to put those involved in the scam, at trial with leave of the Apex Court. Now when the ball is in the courtyard of the trial court, validity of the prosecution is again being questioned by the petitioner, who was at the relevant time Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, Biharsharif, and even before this, petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 13551 of 1996 had moved this Court against order of cognizance and rejection of prayer by the trial court for recall of warrant of arrest and other allied matters involved in the proceeding and the whole exercise then was lost without any salutary result. 3. Petitioner is facing prosecution for his acts of omission and commission during his posting, as has been noticed, at Nalanda in the capacity of Superintendent of Police for his financial aberration during the period of August, 1981 to 6th March, 1984, when in violation of valid norms, rules and instructions issued by the Government, large scale articles of centralized list were purchased beyond his financial and administrative control, as heads of the District units were not authorised to make such purchases. Other accusations attributed to the petitioner were that apart from the fact that bulk purchase was not justified for the Police personnel stationed at Biharsharif, articles so purchased, were of substandard quality and also for non-existent units. Other accusations attributed to the petitioner were that apart from the fact that bulk purchase was not justified for the Police personnel stationed at Biharsharif, articles so purchased, were of substandard quality and also for non-existent units. Allegedly purchases were made from suppliers who were not approved by the Police headquarters and also that purchases so made were at higher rate than what was fixed by the Police headquarters, without inviting tenders, and even firms/ suppliers from which purchases were made were non-existent or fictitious. Other accusations were that the petitioner had manipulated quotations and records, effected purchases even for mounted Police/Radio Police Organization of which he was not Incharge. Quality Control Committee was also provided at unit level which was to be constituted by local Superintendent of Police and commandants of the district units. The proceedings of the committee was required to be recorded in a register maintained under the rules of the Bihar Police Manual. In case of bulk purchase of articles of even list (ii), District Units were required to send proposal for approval and release of the funds. 4. Now excuses on which accusations attributed to the petitioner are sought to be justified can be noticed, and thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since centralized system of purchase and supply of the Police uniform and its accessories had virtually collapsed, local purchase had become inevitable due to inherent weakness of the centralised system of purchase and improper functioning of supply wing of D.G and I.G. of Police. No other alternative remedy was left to the petitioner but to resort to such local purchases to cater to the needs of the Police personnel stationed at Biharsharif in wake of deployment of large police force during communal riot that had erupted in the city and adjoining areas in the year 1981. The police, to curb the riot, that had erupted there, had posted petitioner along with other Police Officers, and in recognition of his valued service rendered by him, after the riot came under control, he was posted as Superintendent of Police at Biharsharif, where he functioned during the period from 10.8.1981 to 6.3.1984. The police, to curb the riot, that had erupted there, had posted petitioner along with other Police Officers, and in recognition of his valued service rendered by him, after the riot came under control, he was posted as Superintendent of Police at Biharsharif, where he functioned during the period from 10.8.1981 to 6.3.1984. Since in the wake of riot, there had been deployment of large police personnel at Biharsharif to curb down riot, large scale purchases were required to be made to equip the Police force with their essential uniforms, and though the purchases were required to be procured by a Central Purchase Committee, the said committee was not able to procure and supply essential uniform items and also that these items were not available in the Central Clothing Store at Patna. As usual, it is urged, to meet certain eventualities and exigencies like eruption of riot, holding of examinations, and holding of elections, bulk purchases are required to be made for these contingent situations. 5. Gravamen of the charges, counsel would urge, would be belied from the communication made by none else but order of the A.I.G. (B) Police Headquarters, when by virtue of communication dated 18.9.1981, the Superintendent of Police/ Heads of District Units were authorised to make local purchases of even centralised list. Taking recourse to finding of the audit report, which, it is urged, had been taken notice of even by the High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 13551 of 1996, criticism is that even the auditor had noticed that Centralised Purchase Committee had not been able to find solution to the action of trading. Failure of the CBI to annexe with the charge sheet the extract of stock register of Central Clothing Stores, learned counsel would urge, was quite enough to suggest that centralized item was not available in central stores. Though there had been list of approved contractors for supply of essential Police uniforms, these instructions created on the papers to ensure supply of unit items had left much to be desired, as even as late as in the month of December, the so called approved contractors had not even executed agreement papers to ensure supply of Police uniforms and its accessories. Refuting accusations about purchases having been made in excess of requirement of the District Police Force stationed at Biharsharif during relevant period, excuse of the petitioner is that though required uniform items are to be collected at district unit level as per Police Manual Rule, 1077, deployment of large Police personnel during riot had necessi tated bulk purchases to be made to equip the Police force for their better functioning. Since purchase of Angola shirt, duly stitched was made, petitioner would justify its purchase, that being quite economical for the State. Reiterating the previous submission, learned counsel would argue that though CBI had calculated requirement on the basis of actual requirement without considering shifting of 2000 forces on deputation in the wake of communal riot, purchases made by him were in fact need based. As for the accusations attributed to him, about purchase from non-existent and fictitious firms, contention is that the approved contractors are usually maintaining firms under various names whereas in reality their functional business happens to be somewhere else. Yet it is urged that since Police Manual does not speak about such central items or otherwise, local purchase was not a prohibited or banned activity, though CBI presumed its ban on mistaken premises. Submission is that out of 17 items, listed in Central items, AIG (Q) had given specific approval both for quantity and price, and for the rest, requisitions were sent but as the same were not available with central stores, purchases were locally made as per alternative procedure, and commenting on the functioning of the investigating agency, learned counsel submits that the whole investigation had turned into a witch hunt for certain officers for their anxiety of initiation of prosecution on a perverse perception of the Director General of Police. Members of the quality control committee of which Sergeant Major also happened to be one of them were required to record proceeding and sign it but the said Sergeant Major was not considered to be conspirator, and hence allegation of poor quality of the articles purchased was of no substance, and commenting on fixed prices, argument was that articles of some higher prices were purchased, considering durability of the articles and also because fixed prices had become wholly unworkable. 6. 6. Though the excuse of the petitioner reiterated at Bar was that purchases were made to cater to the operational necessity, considering shifting of large number of Police forces on deputation in the wake of communal riot, there is no gainsaying that requirement of unit articles were to be calculated at district unit level as per Police Manual rule 1077. Though sheet anchor of the petitioners case was communication dated 18.9.1981 made by AIG, authorising local purchase of even centralised items by the Superintendent of Police/ Commandant, action resorted to by the AIG authorising district head of Police for local purchase of even centralised item was beyond his competence, and allotment of funds, as has been assertion of the CBI, was in violation of the budgetary provision. 7. Strongly reacting to the submission made by the learned counsel for the CBI, Shri Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned coun sel for the petitioner, with his usual persuasiveness, would submit that memo no. 8231/70-112-2882 dated 11.12.1982, the principal document, being used to fault the petitioner was valid only for the year 1982-83 and since none of the 17 uniform items were purchased during the said financial year, in that view of the matter also, validity of the purchases were not questionable. Initiation of prosecution was misconceived, and it is argued that the cavalier attitude of the Central Bureau of Investigation to which CBI misdirected itself had drawn it to come to an erroneous conclusion. Stretching his argument further, learned counsel would urge that though prosecution was launched against the petitioner also under section 409 IPC, substance of accusations having not surfaced during investigation about entrustment or misappropriation of any goods, that charge was dropped by the CBI, and if it is left, then there would be no valid reason for prosecution of the petitioner only under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, and that apart payment of Rs. 5,65,337.66 was made to the supplier only after the petitioner had laid down his office on 6th March, 1984. Summing up his argument, Shri Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would lay stress that since there has been no graft charge against the petitioner, prosecution of the petitioner was for no valid reasons. All these contentions, which are being reiterated, it is urged, were also canvassed before the court below which had overlooked it and made its finding vulnerable. 8. All these contentions, which are being reiterated, it is urged, were also canvassed before the court below which had overlooked it and made its finding vulnerable. 8. As noticed, though a lot of arguments, were advanced by the petitioner justifying his action in making bulk purchases of unit items, and also that docuents were placed on the record ostensibly to counter accusations and for taking defence, it is well nigh settled that at this stage, the Court cannot consider documents filed by the accused with a view to test its reliability or genuineness of the allegations, and the court as such, will confine itself to the allegations and materials collected during investigation simply to ascertain as to whether a prima facie case had been made out against the accused. 9. Though recourse was taken to the comment made by the auditor which was also adversely commented by a Bench of this Court, there is no gainsaying that Court at this stage cannot embark upon an inquiry to ascertain genuineness of accusations, and that apart, even probable defence of the petitioner even of serious implication would hardly be of significance to sort out the answer to this puzzled question. Affidavits and annexures, which were not part of the police papers and audit report too would not merit consideration, as that would amount to usurping functions of the trial court, a course not conceived of by the Legislature. The views taken by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veerana Shivlingappa Konjalgi ( AIR 1976 SC 1947 ) were also reiterated in case of Pratibha Rani vs. Saroj Kumar ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ) when following observations were made by the Court:- "It is well settled by long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under section 482 Cr. P.C., to quash a first information report or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or documents accompanying the same per se....The court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations." 10. In case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. P.C., to quash a first information report or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or documents accompanying the same per se....The court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations." 10. In case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), the Apex Court had broadly outlined the circumstances in which the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be justified in entertaining a proceeding relating to cognizable offence to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure ends of justice and some of them outlined by the Court were that where even uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report did not disclose commission of offence and make out a case against accused, or allegations are so absurd and intensely improbable which did not afford good grounds for proceeding against the accused or even in a case where there is express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code to the institution and continuance of proceeding, inherent powers can be exercised by the High Court. Also in such a case where criminal proceeding is manifestly tainted with mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted, High Court would be justified in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it. Courts have held time without numbers that the Court should be circumspect in quashing prosecution, and while embarking on inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report or complaint, though extraordinary or inherent powers were vested in the High Court, they did not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act for whims or caprice, and equally, whether evidence even if accepted will result in conviction, is not germane to the question. The courts have been reiterating that even these grounds, noticed earlier, exist, such powers vested in the High Court should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspect and that too in rarest of the rare cases. The courts have been reiterating that even these grounds, noticed earlier, exist, such powers vested in the High Court should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspect and that too in rarest of the rare cases. In case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre ( AIR 1988 SC 709 ), the Apex Court, while sounding a note of caution, observed that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie, establish the offence. However, wherein opinion of the court, chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, can quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 11. Almost in similar situation, the Apex Court in case of State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, 1991(2) PLJR 11, against an order of quashing of prosecution by High Court, had occasion to observe that by considering affidavits and annexures, as evidence, the High Court had converted itself into a trial court and pronounced the respondents to be innocent and quashed the proceeding. A note of caution was sounded in the following terms by the Apex Court: "Least we can say is that this was not a case where High Court should have entertained in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.... as the appreciation of the evidence was function of the criminal court." 12. Since evidences are yet to be led before the trial court, bona fide of which is to be judged, this Court at this stage cannot jump to a conclusion that the prosecution of the petitioner was abuse of the process of the Court and continuance of the proceeding will result in miscarriage of justice. This Court cannot assume function of a Court of trial or mini trial nor can hold a trial/regular trial, vested in the court of original jurisdiction. Bona fide of accusation about bulk purchase of Police uniform and accessories in excess of requirement and that too at exorbitant high rates without following procedures and guidelines has to be meticulously judged during trial. Bona fide of accusation about bulk purchase of Police uniform and accessories in excess of requirement and that too at exorbitant high rates without following procedures and guidelines has to be meticulously judged during trial. Equally since matter of purchase being within administrative and financial competence has to be judged by the trial court, I am afraid that any comment can be made at this stage which may censure the Court with judicial impropriety. Though financial absurdity allegedly committed by the accused are sought to be justified on excuses of oblique motive of superior Police Officers at apex of the hierarchy for wreaking vengeance due to personal pique, no comment would be desirable at this stage even on this score. Reverting to the present case, in my view the accusations attributed to the petitioner do clearly constitute a prima facie case and do not fall under any of the categories of cases calling for exercise of extraordinary or inherent power of the High Court to quash the proceeding. Though I am not to make any running commentary on anatomy or dimension of corruption, there is no gainsaying that ambiguity of corruption is always associated with motivation of private gains at public expenses and this Court at this stage would not be justified in dislodging inference drawn by the prosecution. Reliance placed on AIR 1968 SC 59 (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras and anr. vs. Ram Kishan Shri Kishan Jhavir etc.) was quite misconceived as observations made by the Apex Court were in quite different context. Similarly reliance placed on AIR 1988 SC 709 (supra) would not have application in the case under consideration, as in that case, prosecution was quashed by the High Court in view of alleged breach of trust being a civil wrong. 13. In the circumstances, finding no merit, this petition is dismissed. Since the case is petty old and good deal of time has been consumed in deciding the matters agitated before this Court from time to time, it is directed that the trial be expedited with all sincerity.