Order This revision has been preferred by Sri Mohan Prasad Sinha, the then Deputy Finance Manager, B.C.C.L. against the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-A.D.J. XIII Dhanbad in R.C. No. 2(A)/96(D) by which the prayer for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner alongwith three others has been rejected. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the petitioner was Deputy Finance Manager, B.C.C.L. from the period 1992 to 1995 in Bastacola area. During this period one C.T.C. Company run by two co-accused Rajesh Gandhi and Ramesh Gandhi used to perform certain contractual responsibility for which the B.C.C.L. used to pay them under 4th running account bill on the guarantee of M/s Vijaya Bank through them. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that during the period of March to April, 1994 cheques for Rs. 22,40,106. n were issued in favour of M/s C.T.C. Company instead of M/s Vijaya Bank without observing the normal procedure. Prosecution case further is that C.T.C. Company deposited the cheque of Rs. 20,16,086.72 in their own account instead of depositing it with the Vijaya Bank resulting in wrongful gain to it and wrongful loss to the Bank. The CBI, accordingly, registered R.C. Case No. 2(A)/96(D) and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against four persons under sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC. Act, 1988. 4. The petitioner has challenged this order on the grounds that the contract between the bank and C.T.C. company has nothing to do with the official duties of the petitioner who as Deputy Finance Manager has issued the cheque of Rs. 20,16,086.72 in favour of C.T.C. Company on their authorization to one R.S. Prasad. It is further submitted that by issuing the said cheque in favour of the C.T.C. Company the petitioner has not conspired with other accused persons nor caused any loss to the B.C.C.L. As such the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the liabilities. 5. Sri Mazumdar learned counsel for the petitioner stressed before me that the role of the petitioner does not constitute any offence particularly in absence of any wrongful gain shown to him. It is further mentioned that since the petitioner has retired in the year 1995, the charges for offences under P.C. Act are not maintainable. 6. 5. Sri Mazumdar learned counsel for the petitioner stressed before me that the role of the petitioner does not constitute any offence particularly in absence of any wrongful gain shown to him. It is further mentioned that since the petitioner has retired in the year 1995, the charges for offences under P.C. Act are not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the CBI oppose the contention on the grounds that knowing fully well that the cheques were to be issued in favour of Vijaya Bank as per agreement, the petitioner has issued the same directly in favour of C.T.C. Company and handed over the cheque to a person who was not authorized to receive it. The learned counsel for the CBI further drawn my attention towards the orders passed in Cr. Misc No. 2059 of 2000 dated 10.7.2001 by which the prayer for quashing the cognizance by the two accused Rajesh Gandhi and Ramesh Gandhi were dismissed by this court. Further-more when they preferred Cr. Misc. Petition before the. Hon'ble Apex Court in Cr. Misc. Petition Nos. 5006 and 5458 of 2001 which were also dismissed. Therefore the present revision petition is not maintainable. 7. I have gone through the materials on record and the impugned order dated 22.11.2006. The learned trial court has considered all the points raised before it to ascertain whether sufficient materials were available to disclose sufficiently that charges were made out or not. The learned trial court has further considered the observation of this court and the Hon'ble Apex Court by which the prayer for quashing the cognizance was not accepted. 8. I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in matter of cognizance in this case. I further do not find that the learned trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly, causing any prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. 9. Having regards to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find that the present revision application is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.