ORDER A.K. Saxena, J. The Criminal Revision Nos. 75/99, 126/99, 127/99, 147/99, 161/99, 242/99 and 734/97 arise out of the orders dated 21-12-1998 and 13-5-1997 passed by Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No. 6/97, therefore, these revisions are being disposed of by this common order. These revisions have been filed u/s 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the applicants/accused against the orders dated 21-12-1998 and 13-5-1997 passed by Special Judge, Bhopal, in Special Case No. 6/97 whereby, cognizance was taken without prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code and the charges u/s 13(1)(d)(ii-iii) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in alternative u/s 13(1)(d)(ii-iii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants/accused Sheetala Sahay, D.V.S.R. Sharma, P.V. Sreenivasaiah, A.S. Lakshmi Narasimhaiya, R.P. Khare, Vijay Ram Bahadur Gopal, M.N. Nadkarni and S.W. Mohgaonkar and under sections 13(1)(d)(ii-iii), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code against C.L. Rajam, G. Ram Mohan Rao and M. Rajendra Prasad have been framed. Short facts for adjudication of these criminal revisions are that a contract worth Rs. 35 Crores was given to four construction companies for masonary work of Hasdeo-Bango Multi-purpose Dam Project. This dam was to be constructed with the aid of World Bank through Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh Government. It was a major irrigation project. After acceptance of tenders and signing of contract, the excavation work of stones/rubbles and construction of dam was started in the year 1983. As per contract, the excavation work was to be done from 'Therma Pahad' quarry, which was 12 kms. away from the dam site. After sometime, it was found that the stones/rubbles were not available to the requisite quantity and quality in 'Therma Pahad' quarry, therefore, the contractors requested the department to arrange alternative quarry. Thereafter, it was found that the requisite quality and quantity of stones are available in 'Katghora' quarry, which was 22 kms. away from the dam site. Accordingly, the contractors were allowed to excavate the stones from 'Katghora' quarry but it was informed that they may do so on their own risk and there shall be no financial obligation of the State Government. away from the dam site. Accordingly, the contractors were allowed to excavate the stones from 'Katghora' quarry but it was informed that they may do so on their own risk and there shall be no financial obligation of the State Government. Thereafter, it was recommended that the payment of extra lead to the contractors may be allowed. Since it was obligatory on the part of the contractors to satisfy themselves regarding availability of required quality and quantity of the material and it was also made clear that if any quarry is changed for any reason whatsoever, no claim shall be entertained on this account, but the recommendation of extra payment to the contractors was made against the contract as well as against the provisions of G.C. 79. S.W. Mohgaonkar, the then Superintending Engineer in memo dated 18-12-1984, while doing wrong interpretation of the contract, failed to mention the note No. 3 of quarry map. On receiving this memo, M.N. Nadkarni, the then Chief Engineer, Hasdeo-Bango Project wrote a letter dated 11-1-1985 to the Secretary, Irrigation Department with the same recommendation, but the Secretary directed to prepare an agenda note which was considered in the meeting of P.C.R. (Progress Reviewing Committee) but this committee failed to take any decision and recommended that further proceedings may be taken up within the contractual limits. The matter was also referred to World Bank but the World Bank made a suggestion that the matter be resolved within the contractual limits. Thereafter, S.W. Mohgaonkar did not take any action to allow or reject the claim of the contractors and instead of doing so, he proposed that the State Government may be approached for consideration and accordingly, M.N. Nadkarni wrote a letter on 4-7-1985 to the Secretary, Irrigation Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. In the meanwhile, the contractors informed the concerned officers that they may go for arbitration but S.W. Mohganokar failed to take any decision as per the arbitration clause and keeping the recommendation of World Bank and the decision of P.C.R. aside, he referred the matter to the State Government. The matter was examined at Government level and the Chief Engineer informed vide memo dated 28-2-1989 that the issue should be dealt with strictly as per terms and conditions of the contract. The matter was examined at Government level and the Chief Engineer informed vide memo dated 28-2-1989 that the issue should be dealt with strictly as per terms and conditions of the contract. A copy of this memo was sent to S.W. Mohgaonkar vide letter dated 29-4-1989, but he failed to inform the decision of Government to the contractors and he himself did not take any action for refusing the claim of the contractors. Thereafter, the accused C.L. Rajam, the Executive Director of SCW Construction Ltd. submitted his representation for payment of extra amount and the matter was referred with all relevant documents to M.S. Billore, Secretary, Irrigation Department. He referred this matter to S.T. Kendhe (since deceased), Financial Advisor for his opinion and he opined that the contractors are not entitled to any extra amount legally but their claim is based on equity. He also recommended that the matter may be considered by the senior officers of the Department and on this recommendation, M.S. Billore constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of P.V. Sreenivasaiah, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, comprising the members - V.R.B. Gopai, Chief Engineer, Hasdeo-Bango Project, S.T. Kendhe, Financial Advisor, A.S. Lakshmi Narasimhaiya, Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department and R.P. Khare, Secretary, Brah Pariyojna Mandal. The committee's recommendation was that since, the quarry was changed by the Department on technical grounds and the condition of the Therma Pahad' quarry was not in the knowledge of the Department, therefore, the contractors are entitled for additional payment. This recommendation was totally against the facts as stated earlier. This shows that the committee members gave their decision intentionally so that the contractors may reap illegal fruits. As per conditions of the contract, the contractors should have referred the matter to Superintending Engineer by filing an appeal and he should have rejected the claim and against that order, the contractors should have referred the matter to the Arbitrator. This shows that the committee members gave their decision intentionally so that the contractors may reap illegal fruits. As per conditions of the contract, the contractors should have referred the matter to Superintending Engineer by filing an appeal and he should have rejected the claim and against that order, the contractors should have referred the matter to the Arbitrator. It has been further stated by the prosecution that M.S. Billore was not satisfied with all these recommendations and he wrote a different note and sent it to Shitala Sahay, the then Minister of Water Resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh, showing various grounds for non-payment of extra amount to the contractors but, the Minister kept the file with himself for about 6 months without taking any decision and when M.S. Billore retired and new Secretary D.V.S.R. Sharma took over the charge, the Minister returned the file to him. Thereafter, the new secretary D.V.S.R. Sharma gave his opinion, which was totally against the opinion of M.S. Billore and D.V.S.R. Sharma recommended on various grounds that extra payment can be made to the contractors. In the meanwhile, the contractors had already submitted their claim before the Arbitration Tribunal and therefore, it was also recommended that the payment can be made only if the contractors are ready to withdraw their cases. This Secretary recommended the case in favour of the contractors with ulterior motive and against the facts. The Minister also passed the orders on 20-1-1992 in favour of contractors for extra payment. On account of extra payment, the State Government was put to a loss of Rs. 1,02,46,200/- and the Minister, Secretary, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Committee Members caused wrongful loss to the State Government by extending illegal benefits to a third party and misusing their public capacity and thereby these applicants/accused committed the offence of criminal conspiracy also. The remaining applicants, who are contractors, also received wrongful gain in connivance with other applicants/accused and therefore, they were also involved in criminal conspiracy. All these revisions have been filed mainly on these grounds that the orders of the trial Court are totally erroneous and against law. No charges can be framed on the basis of documentary evidence produced on behalf of prosecution with the charge-sheet. The order was passed without referring the material available on the record. The action of the applicants was legal and it was based on equity and justice. No charges can be framed on the basis of documentary evidence produced on behalf of prosecution with the charge-sheet. The order was passed without referring the material available on the record. The action of the applicants was legal and it was based on equity and justice. The claim of contractors was rightly accepted. The trial Court has failed to consider all the arguments advanced before it. The trial Court has wrongly assumed that World Bank and P.C.R. reached at this conclusion that extra payment shall not be made. The trial Court took into consideration certain facts which were not available in the charge-sheet. The applicants, who were public servants, have acted in their official capacity and therefore, cognizance could not be taken against these applicants without obtaining prior sanction as provided u/s 197 of the Code. Therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court are not sustainable and liable to be quashed and the applicants are entitled to be discharged. These revisions have been filed mainly on two grounds that the facts of the case do not make out any prima-facie case against any of the accused/applicants, therefore, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in framing the charges and cognizance could not be taken in absence of prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code. The learned senior counsels contended that the alleged acts of the applicants are said to have been an integral part of their official functions and discharge of their official duties, therefore, prior sanction was necessary and mandatory as provided u/s 197 of the Code, therefore, the charge-sheet in question was not entertainable against these applicants. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that the Minister and Officers, who are accused in this case, committed a grave misconduct which does not come in the discharge of their duties, therefore, there was no need for obtaining prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code. There is sufficient material in the record to frame the charges and the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges against the applicants. It has been further contended that while framing the charges, the Court cannot evaluate the evidence in detail and only it can be considered whether any prima-facie case is made out for framing of charges against the accused on the basis of allegations made against them in the charge-sheet. It has been further contended that while framing the charges, the Court cannot evaluate the evidence in detail and only it can be considered whether any prima-facie case is made out for framing of charges against the accused on the basis of allegations made against them in the charge-sheet. Before coming to other points, it would be proper to consider the last argument advanced on behalf of State. The learned Additional Advocate General placed his reliance on State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi and others, JT 2000 (Suppl.2) SC 635, State by Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Shri S. Bangarappa, JT 2000 (Suppl.3) SC 29, and State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari and others etc., 2000(2) MPLJ (S.C.) 322 = 2000(1) SC 169. On the other hand, the learned senior counsels appearing for the applicants relied on the principles laid down in State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc., , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, , Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, . On a perusal of all these citations, I am of the opinion that while considering the question of framing of charges, the Judge must apply his mind and find out as to whether any prima-facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of material available on the record but roving inquiry is not necessary or it would not be proper to weigh the evidence in detail as it is being done at the time of passing of the judgment, after conclusion of the trial. But, I must repeat that judicial mind has to be applied to reach at a conclusion as to whether a prima-facie case is made out against the accused for framing of the charges or not? There is a clear distinction between the evaluation of material for framing of charges and evaluation of evidence for convicting or acquitting the accused. The Courts should always borne in mind this distinction while framing the charges. There is a clear distinction between the evaluation of material for framing of charges and evaluation of evidence for convicting or acquitting the accused. The Courts should always borne in mind this distinction while framing the charges. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce few lines of Niranjan Singh's case (supra), as follows: From the above discussion, it seems well settled that at the sections 227-228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. The citations on which the learned Additional Advocate General placed his reliance, also laid down the same principles as laid down in the citations on which the learned senior counsels for the applicants placed their reliance. The material cannot be examined and assessed in detail at the time of framing of charges. Only it can be examined with a view to be satisfied that a prima-facie case of commission of offence is made out against the accused and this exercise would be a limited one and that too for a limited purpose. The law is well settled with regard to scope of evaluating the material available on the record or produced on behalf of prosecution before the stage of framing of charges. Now, I shall deal with all the revisions filed before this Court. It would be futile exercise to repeat the case of prosecution. It is prima-facie clear from the prosecution story that except the contractors, all other applicants/accused acted in their official capacity while dealing with the matter of extra-payment to contractors. The learned senior counsels placed their reliance on State of H.P. Vs. M.P. Gupta, , R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, , B. Saha and Others Vs. M.S. Kochar, and Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari, and argued that except the contractors, all other accused acted in their public capacity, therefore, cognizance could have not been taken by the trial Court in absence of prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code. M.P. Gupta, , R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, , B. Saha and Others Vs. M.S. Kochar, and Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari, and argued that except the contractors, all other accused acted in their public capacity, therefore, cognizance could have not been taken by the trial Court in absence of prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code. While dealing with this issue, the learned trial Court placed his reliance on S.B. Saha's case (supra) and reached at this conclusion that acts of corruption do not come under the duties of public servant, therefore, there was no need to take prior sanction against the accused persons. In this case, the principle is laid down in para 19 as follows: 19. In sum, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be one which has been committed by the public servant either in this official capacity or under colour of the office held by him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and principle laid down in this citation before coming to the conclusion. The facts of case in hand reveal that except the contractors, all other accused persons took the decisions with regard to extra payment to contractors, as public servants of the State Government. They dealt with the matter through official note sheets, letters or memos. It was not a case of under hand dealings. The matter was also referred to the World Bank, P.C.R. and Financial Advisor and then on the ground of equity, the matter was finalised in favour of contractors. These facts indicate that all these acts were done by public servants during discharge of their official duties and in such a situation, a prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code was necessary. The trial Court committed an error in deciding this point in favour of prosecution and in taking cognizance against those accused persons who were public servants and consequently, committed an error in taking the cognizance against these accused persons. In M.P. Gupta's case (supra), the Apex Court elaborates the "official duty" as under: Use of the expression "official duty" implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. In M.P. Gupta's case (supra), the Apex Court elaborates the "official duty" as under: Use of the expression "official duty" implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. The section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. It would be profitable to quote few lines of the case of Vimal Kumar vs. State of M.P., 2005(4) MPLJ 420 = 2005(3) MPHT 167 in which the conditions for prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code have been laid down as follows: Before the sanction u/s 197 of the Code can be invoked two conditions must be satisfied (a) that, the accused must be a public servant of the kind mentioned in the section i.e. he must be a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government; (b) that, the offence must be committed by the accused while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. Out of all the applicants, one applicant was Minister and some of the applicants were Government servants and remaining three applicants were contractors. Since, the Minister and other public servants acted in their official capacity, therefore, before taking cognizance against them, prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code was necessary and without filing of previous sanction, the Court was not competent to take the cognizance and to frame the charges against them. Now, I shall deal with all the revisions filed before this Court in the light of facts of the case. The question arises for consideration whether the trial Court framed the charges without sufficient material available on the record? The revisions have been filed for the relief that the order impugned be set aside as no prima-facie material was available on the record for framing of charges. The question arises for consideration whether the trial Court framed the charges without sufficient material available on the record? The revisions have been filed for the relief that the order impugned be set aside as no prima-facie material was available on the record for framing of charges. The learned senior counsels vehemently argued that the papers filed with the charge-sheet indicate that the accused persons acted bona fidely in the discharge of their official duties and there is no iota of evidence to show that they have adopted any illegal procedure or they were involved in corrupt practice or they gained something illegally while coming to this conclusion that the contractor can be paid the amount for extra work. It was further argued that the contractors requested to pay extra amount as they were forced by circumstances to excavate the rubble stones for masonary work of dam from the quarry which was situated at remote distance and this request does not amount to involvement of these contractors in criminal conspiracy. While dealing with the revisional powers of High Court, the Apex Court observed in Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 Cri.L.J. 225 that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers, the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial Court and the Appellate Courts are required to do so. In Prafulla Kumar's case (supra), the Apex Court has laid down broad principles for framing of charges which are discussed in paragraph 10 as follows: 10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges u/s 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction u/s 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. It is also held in S.B. Johari's case (supra) that the charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposed to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed a particular offence. The trial Court discussed the facts of the case with regard to all the applicants/accused in detail and found that there was corrupt practice on the part of accused persons and they were also involved in criminal conspiracy, therefore, the trial Court framed the charges accordingly. Now, it has to be considered whether any material was available in the case for framing of charges against the accused persons or the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges against them. The project of construction of Hasdeo-Bango Multi-purpose dam was aided by the World Bank. It is true that contractors accepted the contract and the excavation work was to be done from 'Therma Pahad' quarry and if any change of quarry was at all needed, it could have been done by the contractors at their own risk and no extra payment would be made to them. It is true that contractors accepted the contract and the excavation work was to be done from 'Therma Pahad' quarry and if any change of quarry was at all needed, it could have been done by the contractors at their own risk and no extra payment would be made to them. When it came to the knowledge of contractors that the rubble stones of Therma Pahad quarry are not of requisite quality and quantity, they requested to allow them to start excavation work from other quarry and consequently, they were allowed to start it from 'Katghora' quarry, which was 22 Kms. away from the dam site whereas 'Therma Pahad' quarry was only 12 Kms. away from the site. The contractors requested for payment of extra work as they took out the stones/rubbles from quarry which was far away from the site and on the ground of equity, the contractors were allowed to claim extra payment. No doubt, the project was aided by the World Bank and when the matter-in-dispute was referred to the World Bank, it was informed by the World Bank that the matter may be resolved within the contractual limits. This was only a suggestion of the World Bank. The prosecution has totally failed to file any document with the charge-sheet to show that this suggestion was binding on the State Government. It was not the intention of the World Bank behind this suggestion that the dam may got constructed of sub-standard material so that cost of the dam shall not exceed. If the public servants/accused persons recommended the case of contractors on equity basis, it does not mean that they acted beyond their jurisdiction. If the contractors would have constructed the dam by using material available in 'Therma-Pahad' quarry, what would be the result? The result would be either the dam might have collapsed immediately of its construction or the completion period of dam might have extended involving huge extra burden on exchequer of State Government or it might have remained pending on papers only by this time. Under these circumstances, if the public servants recommended the case of payment of extra amount to contractors for extra work, it cannot be inferred that they were involved in corrupt practice. Under these circumstances, if the public servants recommended the case of payment of extra amount to contractors for extra work, it cannot be inferred that they were involved in corrupt practice. It is not the case of prosecution that these public servants recommended the case of contractors for extra payment knowing fully well that the whole dam was constructed by using rubbles/stones of 'Therma-Pahad' quarry. If large quantity of stones were excavated from Katghora quarry for the construction of dam and extra payment was recommended only for that quantity of stones which were taken out from Katghora quarry (though not in confirmation with the contract but on equity basis), then it cannot be said that these accused persons extended any illegal favour to contractors. It is also not the case of prosecution that the contractors received more amount than the amount incurred in that extra work. Under these circumstances, if the documentary evidence, produced on behalf of prosecution, is taken into consideration as it is, even then the applicants cannot be convicted under those sections under which they have been charged by the trial Court. As far as the case of the then Minister applicant/accused is concerned, the prosecution came forward with this case that M.S. Billore the then secretary submitted the file to him with his note sheet which was against the contractors, but the Minister kept the file with himself for several months and when M.S. Billore retired and new Secretary joined, the Minister again referred the matter to new Secretary for his opinion and the new Secretary forwarded the file to Minister with favourable note and thereafter, orders were passed by the Minister with ulterior motive. It is alleged by prosecution that all the accused persons conspired to give illegal favour to contractors. At this juncture, it would be proper to mention that all the documents and papers filed with the charge-sheet have binding effect on the prosecution as these were filed by the prosecution in support of its documents and papers filed with the charge-sheet have binding effect on the prosecution as these were filed by the prosecution in support of its case. Special Police Establishment Divisional Lok-Ayukta Karyalaya, Bhopal submitted the charge-sheet before the Special Judge and apart from other documents, the prosecution filed an un-signed representation at page 6 titled Payment of extra lead in Hasdeo-Bango Project some hard facts which was sent by the accused (Ex. Secy.) and the same was received on 31-12-1994. In this representation/document, the points in favour of accused persons have been dealt with. Filing of this document with the charge-sheet means the prosecution also relied on this document which is certainly not in favour of prosecution story. Another document was also filed at page 10 with the charge-sheet titled Various role of Mr. M.S. Billore, Ex. Secretary WRD and facts not so far throughout in respect of Hasdeo-Bango Project lead case. This document is also relied on by the prosecution and that is why it has been filed by the prosecution in support of its contention. It is nowhere stated by the prosecution as to why these documents were filed and therefore, it can only be presumed that these documents have been filed to strengthen the case of prosecution but, in my opinion, these documents totally destroyed the case of prosecution. The paragraph 9.1 of the second document is very important, which runs as follows: 9.1 On return from the U.S.A. in 4/91 there was drastic change in the attitude of Shri Billore. The case was with the Secretary fully processed and not sent to the Minister for orders. Somewhere in the end of 4-91 Mr. Rajam representing the S.E.W. met the Minister and informed him that Shri Billore who was hitherto inclined to get a decision has started harassing him with the demand of over Rs. 15 lakhs as he was retiring shortly and had still to perform marriages of his 3 children during the course of next year or two. Shri Rajam also told that he politely refused to oblige Shri Billore. On this Shri Billore had told him that the case will never see the light of the day, and he, (Shri Billore) knows how to do this. The present complications are natural corollary of the same as he is after this case in one way or the other for the past nearly 3 years. On this Shri Billore had told him that the case will never see the light of the day, and he, (Shri Billore) knows how to do this. The present complications are natural corollary of the same as he is after this case in one way or the other for the past nearly 3 years. The whole case of the prosecution took 'U' turn in favour of accused persons because of both these documents and these documents cast shadow of suspicion on the case of prosecution. The second document discloses the role played by the Secretary M.S. Billore initially and afterwards. Though, no orders can be passed against M.S. Billore at present on the basis of this document as this Court is not dealing with the matter against him but, certainly, the applicants/accused are benefited by these documents, as the documents were filed and relied upon by the prosecution. The charges against S.W. Mohgaonkar and M.N. Nadkarni were framed by the trial Court on this ground that the additional claim of contractors was kept alive by these officers even after the World Bank and P.R.C. did not allow the claim. The roll of World Bank has already been discussed earlier in this order and P.R.C. made only a suggestion but, failed to take any decision on the disputed issue. Only keeping the matter alive is not an offence. The intention behind it, should have been disclosed by some evidence or it could have been presumed on the basis of some documentary evidence so that the charges may be framed but, not a single document was filed by the prosecution to show the mala-fide intention of these applicants. M.S. Billore, the then Secretary, appointed a Committee on the advice of Financial Adviser for consideration the question of payment of extra lead. P.V. Sreenivasaiah, headed the Committee and V.R.B. Gopal, A.S. Lakshmi Narasimhaiya, R.P. Khare and S.T. Kedhe, Financial Advisor (since dead) were the members of this Committee. The matter was considered by them and the Committee reached at this conclusion that the contractors are entitled to get the extra payment for extra work. The Committee was appointed by the Secretary and it was duty of the Committee members to give their recommendation. It was for the Secretary to agree or to disagree with these recommendations. The Committee was not empowered to take a final decision. The Committee was appointed by the Secretary and it was duty of the Committee members to give their recommendation. It was for the Secretary to agree or to disagree with these recommendations. The Committee was not empowered to take a final decision. Not a single document has been filed on behalf of prosecution to establish prima facie that there was an illegal intention of the Committee members behind their recommendation. The trial Court framed the charges against these persons without considering the record properly as there was nothing to show that they had mala-fide intention behind their recommendation. D.V.S.R. Sharma, the new Secretary examined the whole case and sent his recommendation to Minister. The trial Court framed the charges against D.V.S.R. Sharma on this ground that he prepared his note without taking into consideration the suggestions made by the World Bank and the decision taken by the Department on 28-2-1989. D.V.S.R. Sharma has given various grounds for his opinion and on the basis of his note sheet, no malice can be inferred behind his opinion and the prosecution has also failed to produce any evidence in support of its contention that D.V.S.R. Sharma gave the opinion with ulterior motive. On the other hand, the intentions of M.S. Billore were clear and to show his motive, the prosecution itself filed the documents which were referred hereinabove. If the Minister could smell the intention of M.S. Billore and kept the file with him and returned it back to new Secretary after the retirement of M.S. Billore, no mala fide intention can be presumed against the then Minister. All these facts establish that the prosecution has totally failed to show prima facie that there was mala fide intention of D.V.S.R. Sharma in forwarding his note which Was recorded in favour of contractors or Sheetala Sahai had any mala-fide intention in keeping the file for 3 long time. In these circumstances, no charges could have been framed against them on above mentioned grounds. As far as the contractors accused persons are concerned, they only demanded payment of extra work as the excavation work was done by them from a quarry which was 22 kms. from the site of dam and in the opinion of this Court, requesting for extra payment for extra work, though not included in the contract, does not mean that these contractors were involved in a criminal conspiracy. from the site of dam and in the opinion of this Court, requesting for extra payment for extra work, though not included in the contract, does not mean that these contractors were involved in a criminal conspiracy. The prosecution has not come forward with this case that stones/rubbles were excavated from Therma-Pahad quarry and payment was asked for excavation of stones from Katghora quarry. Therefore, no inference could be drawn against them that they were also involved in the conspiracy. While dealing with the provisions of section 70 of Indian Contract Act, the Apex Court held in State of West Bengal vs. M/s B.K. Mondal and Sons that the Officers enter into contract orally or through correspondence with strictly complying with the provisions of section 175(3) of the Act, and what is done in pursuance of the contract is for the benefit of the Government and for their use and enjoyment and is otherwise legitimate and proper, section 70 would step in and support a claim for compensation made by the contracting parties notwithstanding the fact that the contract had not been made as required by section 175(3). This principle also applies in the present case. In these circumstances, the question of involvement of all these contractors and other accused persons into criminal conspiracy does not arise. If the Government Officers and the Minister possessed the powers to take a decision and if the decision was taken in favour of contractors on equity basis, no offence is made out against them either under any of the sections of Prevention of Corruption Act or u/s 120-B of Indian Penal Code in absence of mens-rea, malice, illegal or mala-fide intention on their part. On the basis of material available on the record, the ingredients of the offence must be established prima facie for framing of charges and then only the charges could have been framed. In this case also, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish prima facie that the accused acted with ulterior motive while taking any decision but, the prosecution has failed to do so. On a perusal of whole record of the case, this Court finds that all the accused acted bonafidely and there was no malice or mala-fide intention behind their action. On a perusal of whole record of the case, this Court finds that all the accused acted bonafidely and there was no malice or mala-fide intention behind their action. It cannot be inferred from the papers of charge-sheet that the Government servants and the Minister took the decision in favour of the contractors with mala fide intentions or they failed to act bonafidely. It has not been prima facie established that the contractors were allowed by other accused persons to draw the amount for which they were not entitled to on equity basis. In S.P. Bhatnagar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri.L.J. 566, it has been held that the abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of section 5(1)(d) must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the accused caused deliberate loss to the department. In this case, it could not be established prima facie that the Government servants and Minister caused deliberate loss to the department by making extra payment to the contractors. It was also submitted by the learned senior counsels that the contractors made a claim before the Arbitration Tribunal for extra payment of more than Rs. 3 Crore but, they settled their claim only for about Rs. 1 Crore and withdrew their remaining claim. This shows the bona fides of all the accused persons and no prima facie case is made out against them. No doubt, it is another circumstance in favour of applicants. It is a matter of general belief and rather may be true that the Government servants do not take the decisions on the disputed matters and they try to force the persons to file their cases in the Court for adjudication of their disputes and that is why, the State Government is one of the litigants in most of the cases. In this case, I found that the officers of the State Government and the Minister tried to take a decision which was in favour of State Government and the public even then, the applicants were dragged into criminal prosecution. In this case, I found that the officers of the State Government and the Minister tried to take a decision which was in favour of State Government and the public even then, the applicants were dragged into criminal prosecution. If such type of cases are instituted in the Courts against the Government servants, certainly they will not take any decision because there would be fear in their mind that they may be involved in criminal cases and this fear or attitude of the Government servants would hamper the progress of the State or the Country. This case is an example of unnecessary prosecution of the Minister, Government servants and the contractors. On the basis of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the accused persons, who were Minister, Government servants and contractors, acted bona fidely and it cannot be presumed from the prosecution story that they had any mala fide intention or mens-rea behind their decision of payment of extra claim. The trial Court has failed to consider various aspects of the case in proper perspective with regard to interpretation of letter of the World Bank, the recommendation of P.R.C., powers of public servants, interest of the Government, actual payment for actual work done, settlement for less amount for extra work, role of M.S. Billore, the then Secretary and so on so forth and committed an error in framing the charges against the applicants and taking cognizance against public servants without sanction u/s 197 of the Code. The orders impugned, passed by the trial Court, are against the facts of the case and are not based on sound principle of law of framing of charges and taking cognizance, therefore, the findings of the trial Court are erroneous. On the basis of material available in the case, the charges under sections 13(1)(d)(II-III), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120-B of Indian Penal Code could have not been framed. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed on 21-12-1998 and 13-5-1997 by the trial Court with regard to taking cognizance without prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code and framing of charges are quashed and consequently all the applicants/accused are discharged. Final Result : Allowed