Order The petitioner has filed this revision application for setting aside the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the C.B.1. 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(D), now pending in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-AD.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 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. 6001- for Kyanite GradeI 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. 1,2001- 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 120B/420 I.P.C. 3. After investigation, the C.B.I. has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and few other persons for the offence under Sections 120B/420 of the I.P.C. r/w Sections 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the I.P.C. 4. After investigation, the C.B.I. has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and few other persons for the offence under Sections 120B/420 of the I.P.C. r/w Sections 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the I.P.C. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the General Manager (Commercial) in Hindustan Copper Ltd. and he was also the head of the department. Before his joining, the price was raised from Rs. 1,000/- M.T to Rs. 1,500 M.T. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that he proposed another increase from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,000/ and the said proposal was moved and the price was revised to Rs. 2,000/-. Thereafter, S.K. Karanjai proposed reduction of the price which was also authorized by the petitioner but the said reduced price have been proved and agreed by the authority of the Pricing Committee. Therefore, he is not the responsible or he is not the final authority for reducing the price. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that petitioner alongwith 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. Though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.A. but after investigation, the C.B.I. has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner Ramachandran Kuppuswami. 7. From the impugned order I find that the petitioner was in Pricing Committee at the relevant time. Regarding reduction in price of Kyanite Grade-I again after 25 days of reduction of price increase of price of Kyanite Grade-I were managed by S.K. Karanjai in conspiracy with the present petitioner-A. Kuppuswami. I further find from the impugned order that the price of the Kyanite was reduced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 600/- 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. 1,000/- to Rs. 600/- 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 others. 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. 1.200/- 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.A. and also in the impugned order clearly reveal that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. 8. 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.