( 1 ) THE petitioner in Criminal revision No. 139 of 2006 is an accused in t. R. No. 4 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , bhubaneswar. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 23-12-2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. The petitioner in CRLMC No. 232 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 5 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, cbi, Bhubaneswar. He has filed this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 14-10-2004 passed in the aforesaid case framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 12 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. The petitioner in CRLMC No. 233 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 12 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Special judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He was filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 14-10-2004 passed in the aforesaid case framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 16 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 13-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 13-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. The petitioners in CRLMC No. 254 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 18 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 14-10-2004 passed in the aforesaid case framing charge for commission of offences under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 19 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 23 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. The petitioner in CRLMC No. 255 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 25 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, c. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He has filed this petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 24-12-2004 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting the petition filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 26 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 14-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 14-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. ( 2 ) ALL the above cases have been tagged together since the allegations against all these accused persons are almost similar and different cases have been instituted because of different transactions. Therefore, on the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, all the cases were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that a large scale conspiracy was unearthed in the rourkela Steel Plant and in course of investigation it was found that though no work order had been issued, bills were processed and payments were made and the Rourkela steel Plant was cheated to the tune of crores. The case of the CBI is that during the said period some officials of Rourkela Steel Plant, who are accused persons in all these cases entered into a criminal conspiracy with m/s. New Tech Enterprises and cheated the rourkela Steel Plant by issuing several work orders pursuant to the said conspiracy and even though no work has been executed pursuant to the said work order, bills were processed and payments were made to the tune of crores. As it appears charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons in all the cases for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the petitioners, who are officials of the rourkela Steel Plant had filed applications for being discharged in their respective cases indicating the role played by them and submitted that they are in no way involved in commission of the alleged offences. The learned Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar considering the role played by each of the officials and outsiders who have been benefited out of the transactions rejected the petitions filed by them under Section 227, cr. P. C. on the ground that prima facie materials are available to disclose a case of conspiracy and cheating against all the accused persons and on the basis of the materials available framed charge for commission of the offences as aforesaid. P. C. on the ground that prima facie materials are available to disclose a case of conspiracy and cheating against all the accused persons and on the basis of the materials available framed charge for commission of the offences as aforesaid. ( 4 ) SHRI B. P. Ray, the learned counsel appearing in all the cases submitted that accused Arun Kumar Mohanty was working as Deputy Manager, Operation Bill and accounts in the Finance Section of the rourkela Steel Plant, accused Biraja Prasad das was working as Deputy Manager, Finance and Accounts, accused G. Choubey was working as Dealing Assistant in the said department and accused Naba Kishore mohapatra was working as Senior Executive Assistant in the said department. Their role in the entire transaction is limited to verify the specimen signatures of the officials of the originating department, satisfactory completion of the work, payment of minimum wages, certificate of deposit of e. S. I. and E. P. F. on completion of work. According to Shri Ray, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the proposal for the work is originated by the department and the work is also supervised by the originating department, but only when the question of payment comes, the papers are sent to the Accounts Section where the role of these accused persons is very limited as stated above. It is further submitted that the signatures of the officers of the originating department are available in the Finance section and all these signatures are verified and tallied before the bills are passed for payment. Therefore, there is no scope for the accused persons working in the Finance department to know whether the work was necessary or not or whether the work had been completed or not. Only on the basis of the documents submitted by the originating department, the bills are passed for payment. Similarly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Mahendra Kumar Das and M. V. D. Prasad were also working in the Finance department and their role was limited to the extent as stated earlier. Only on the basis of the documents submitted by the originating department, the bills are passed for payment. Similarly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Mahendra Kumar Das and M. V. D. Prasad were also working in the Finance department and their role was limited to the extent as stated earlier. So far as accused b. C. Mohapatra is concerned, it is contended that he was also working as Senior Executive Assistant, OB and A Section of the rourkela Steel Plant and he was entrusted with the work to scrutinize all the bills received by the section and put up the same before the Deputy Manager and thereafter prepare payment vouchers. In respect of all these accused persons also it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have limited role of scrutinizing the documents and processing the bills for payment. ( 5 ) AS it appears from the averments made in the applications/revisions as well the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, all the officials who are before this Court were working in the finance Department and were responsible for passing the bills for payment. Shri B. P. Ray, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the nature of duties assigned to these officers and submitted that nowhere the officers working in the Accounts department are required to inquire as to whether the work has been completed for payment of the bills. It is the originating department who recommended for payment on completion of work and on the basis of the bills submitted by the originating department, orders are passed for payment. On the above basis, it is contended that the officers working in the Accounts Department can never be said to have conspired with the other accused persons for commission of the alleged offences. ( 6 ) SHRI S. K. Padhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI referring to the records submitted that in course of investigation, the investigating agency being satisfied prima facie about involvement of the officers of the Accounts Department in the conspiracy, framed charge for commission of offences as stated earlier. According to the learned counsel, at the stage of framing of charge and considering an application under Section 227, Cr. According to the learned counsel, at the stage of framing of charge and considering an application under Section 227, Cr. P. C. the Court is only required to see whether prima facie materials are available in the case diary for framing of charge or not. At that stage the court is not required to see whether on the existing evidence there can be any conviction or not. According to Shri Padhi, the learned senior counsel, there are materials available in the case diary to prima facie show that the petitioners have played a role in the entire transaction resulting in huge loss to the Rourkela Steel Plant. ( 7 ) SHRI S. K. Padhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI, submitted a note annexing the charge-sheet, some documents and the statements of witnesses on the basis of which charge-sheet was filed. The nature of work as it appears from two work orders attached to the note of submission is cleaning, scrapping and painting of certain equipments and machineries. The allegation is that such work had never been executed by the agency employed for the purpose whereas bills were raised and paid. Some of the bills passed for payment have also been annexed to the note of submission. One of the witnesses namely, Harish chandra Bhumij has been examined in course of investigation. This witness at the relevant time was working as Deputy Chief industrial Engineer. According to this witness, during the year 1992-93 the wages of the labourer used to be Rs. 75/- to Rs. 80/-per day and as per the proposal, 45 persons worked for 60 days. Therefore, they should have been paid a sum of Rs. 2,16,600/- towards wages whereas the bills for payment of Rs. 4,85,000/- had been passed. At least from this very statement, it appears that while passing the bills the officers in the Accounts Department did not take care to see as to whether correct bills have been raised specially in relation to the wages for the labourers engaged for executing the work. Another witness namely, Amit Mathur has been examined. This witness was working as Assistant Commandant in charge of Pass section of the Rourkela Steel Plant. According to this witness, all work orders issued by any department should be entered in the pass Register without fail. Another witness namely, Amit Mathur has been examined. This witness was working as Assistant Commandant in charge of Pass section of the Rourkela Steel Plant. According to this witness, all work orders issued by any department should be entered in the pass Register without fail. In respect of the work in question there being no entry in the pass Register, it is obvious that no labourers or materials entered into the Rourkela Steel plant for the above works and accordingly the same indicates that no work has been done against the said work orders. This witness has specifically stated that no gate passes have been issued to the agency namely, M/s. New Tech Enterprises against the said work orders and, therefore, the question of entry of labourers against the said work orders does not arise. If the statement of this witness is prima facie accepted, the case of the CBI becomes stronger to the effect that though such work orders were issued, no work had ever been executed and bills were passed for payment. Similarly on examination of the statements of other witnesses examined in course of investigation, a strong suspicion arises regarding conduct of the officers working not only in the originating department but also in the Accounts department. There is no dispute at the Bar that at the stage of either framing of charge or considering an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is only required to see whether prima facie materials are available for framing of charge or not. In view of the discussions made above, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie materials either for framing of charge or rejecting an application filed by the accused under Section 227, Cr. P. C. for being discharged. ( 8 ) I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed in all the cases. The Criminal Revisions and the Criminal Misc. Cases are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .