Order The petitioner has filed this revision application for setting aside the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the C.B.I. Special Judge-cum-A.D.J.-VIII, Dhanbad who has rejected the discharge application filed by the petitioner in R.C. Case No. 2/1987(0), now pending in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum- A.D.J.-VIII at Dhanbad and further hold that there are, prima facie, materials to frame the charge against the petitioner. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Sri S.K. Karanjai, Senior Manager (Commercial), Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkata (the present petitioner) entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Maithan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Associated Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy dishonestly or fraudulently induced the authorities of Hindustan Copper Ltd. to reduce the price of Kyanite Grade-I produced by Hindustan Copper Ltd. "from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 600/- per M.T. on the basis of false and misleading information furnished by Sri S.K. Karanjai to his senior officers. The reduced price of Rs. 600/- for Kyanite Grade-I was made effective from 6.3.1986 and the aforesaid three firms in conspiracy with Sri S.K. Karanjai lifted about 5000 M.T. of Kyanite from Rajkharsawan yard (Bihar) during a period of 25 days only by depriving other Government sector undertakings from lifting their required quantity and thereby caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 20 Lakhs approximately and a corresponding gain to the aforesaid firms. In addition to this, Sri S.K. Karanjai further induced the authorities of Hindustan Copper Ltd. to raise the price of Kyanite Grade-I from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1200/- per M.T. in order to make further benefit to the aforesaid firms in lieu of the fact purchased of Kyanite Grade-I by them at a lower price inasmuch as Hindustan Copper Ltd. being a prime supplier of the Kyanite, controls the market price in the area. On the basis of' this information, a regular case is registered against aforesaid Sri S.K. Karanjai, Senior Manager (Commercial), Hindustan Copper Ltd. and the proprietor/partners of M/s Maithan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Associated Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. under Section 120BI 420I.P.C. 3. After investigation, the C.B.I has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and two other persons for the offence under Section 120B r/w 420 I.P.C and Section 13(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and substantive offence u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. After investigation, the C.B.I has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and two other persons for the offence under Section 120B r/w 420 I.P.C and Section 13(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and substantive offence u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Further accused S.K. Karanjai has been charge-sheeted under Section 161 I.P.C. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has only given a suggestion and a decision taken by the General Manager (Commercial) in presence of petitioner and Mr. Giri, Commercial Officer dealing in Kyanite sale. He further states that Mr. R. Kuppuswami, the General Manager (Commercial) wanted a suitable proposal to prepare for reduction in price to Rs. 600/- Per M.T. in place of Rs. 1,000/- Per M.T. for a short period as the financial year is fast approaching to closure. It is further stated that he has only submitted a suggestive proposal and reduction in price finally approved by CMD after applying the mind and knowledge of consequences as compared to current price with expected stock available for sale. Therefore, he is not responsible or he was not in any conspiracy to reduce the price of the Kyanite and thus, he cannot be implicated in this case and he was not the final authority in fixation of price. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that petitioner alongwith two other persons had dishonestly impressed the higher authorities and management of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. that disposal of Kyanite will not be possible without reduction of the price. This had caused the deliberate reduction of rate and they obtained a pecuniary advantage correspondent to loss to the Hindustan Copper Ltd. 6. Perused the impugned order. I find that such reduction was made for a very short span of time so that the said Kyanite could not be lifted by the other Government sector undertakings. I further find from the impugned order that the price of the Kyanite was reduced from Rs. 1,0001to Rs. 6001- Per M.T. and the same was lifted by M/s Maithan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. & other two firms within a short span of time due to which the other Government undertakings could not get opportunity to lift the materials @ Rs. 600/- per M.T. This has caused a great loss to Hindustan Copper Ltd. corresponding to wrongful gain to the present petitioner & other two firms. 600/- per M.T. This has caused a great loss to Hindustan Copper Ltd. corresponding to wrongful gain to the present petitioner & other two firms. In the very sequence of the fact that the price of Kyanite Grade-I was reduced for a very short period at the instance of S.K. Karanjai, Senior Manager (Commercial), Hindustan Copper Ltd. in favour of M/s Maithan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. (the present petitioner), M/s Associated Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. and again raised the price of Kyanite from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1200/- Per M.T. which proves that the concerned team had an intention from the very beginning to put M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. in wrongful loss of huge amount of money and also for wrongful gain to the abovementioned three firms. If such things are allowed to move in this way then the very policy of nationalization will be fully frustrated. At this stage, the only prima facie case is there or not, have to be seen. I find in this case that the instances mentioned in the F.I.R. and also in the impugned order clearly reveal that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.