JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. Both the criminal revisions are taken together arising out of the common impugned order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. cum Additional Sessions Judge, XIII, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.7(A)/2000(D) by which the petitions preferred under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners for their discharge was dismissed. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Patna vide its order dated26.4.2000, passed in C.W.J.C. No.2652 of 1999, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the cases of Medical Store Department Scam in Bihar relating to illegal purchase of medicines from the Medical Store Department, Calcutta to the tune of crores of rupees by different Health Units of the Department of Health Services, Government of Bihar. Pursuant to that, a case was registered vide R.C. 7(A)/2000(D) on 20.6.2000 on the statement of the informant Sri Braj Kishore Pathak, Deputy Collector, Confidential Section, Dumka (Bihar) for the alleged offence under Sections 120B r/w 408, 409, 420,467, 468, 471, 477A of I.P.C. as also under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i) (c) & (d) of P.C. Act. Materials could be collected against the petitioners in course of investigation. It was disclosed during investigation of the case that the consignment of medicines meant for Medical Officer, In charge, Referral Hospital, Jarmundi under Issue Voucher No.40/1/93 and Issue Voucher No.160/1/93 for the consignee i.e. In charge Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Jarmandi were packed under 40 cartons related to Issue Voucher No.40/1/93 and separate 240 cartons related to Issue Voucher No.160/1/93 and such vouchers were handed over to the petitioner Biplab Majumdar, representative of M/s. Sureka Air Transport, Kolkata on 16.2.1993 and 26.2.1993 respectively against acknowledgement for transportation and delivery of the consignment to the said consignee. But the investigation revealed that no such medicine could be received at the consignee end i.e. In charge Medicial Officer, Referral Hospital, Jarmundi in respect of the said two vouchers. It was further disclosed during investigation that Smt. Radha Devi Khaitan (since expired) was the proprietor of the aforesaid firm M/s. Sureka Air Transport having its office at 119 B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata and the affairs of the said company were being looked after by the petitioner Rajendra Prasad Khaitan under the power of attorney executed by Smt. Radha Devi Khaitan. Petitioner Biplab Majumdar was the Loading Supervisor/Representative and one Pawan Kumar Khaitan was the Booking In charge of the firm handling the transportation work under the supervision of the petitioner Indian Though consignments of medicines were received by Biplab Majumdar on behalf of the said firm M/s. Sureka Air Transport but the same were not delivered to the consignee Medical Officer, In charge, Referral Hospital, Jarmundi. It could be gathered in course of investigation that the consignments of medicines were unloaded in the go down of the said firm M/s. Sureka Air Transport and its sister concern M/s. Phoenix Roadways at Kolkata and it was found that there was no actual transportation of the aforesaid consignments as the company did not indicate the registration numbers of the trucks which was essentially to be mentioned at least in the transporter's challan. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners submitted that initially Jarmundi P.S. CaseNo.0131 of 1994 was registered as a regular case on 15.11.1994 against the accused persons for thorough probe of the allegation. 4. The counsel explained that the father of the petitioner namely Shri Sova Chand Khaitan (since died) was the proprietor of M/s. Sureka Air Transport and after his death, the mother of the petitioner Smt. Radha Devi Khaitan became the sole owner who took over the management of the said business under her control. The said Sova Chand Khaitan at the time of his death, left behind his wife Smt. Radha Devi Khaitan and two minor sons namely, Rajendra Prasad Khaitan i.e. the petitioner herein and another Ramesh Khaitan. Subsequently, they became major and started their own business of Travel Agency under the name and style of M/s Time Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd. since 1985 mainly for selling Air Tickets all over India and they received the honour of first prize for highest selling of tickets. The petitioner Rajendra Prasad Khaitan introduced Car Rental business in Kolkata under the name and style of "Time Cab" and such business became very much popular in West Bengal. He had no occasion to look after and/or to take part in any other business of M/s. Sureka Air Transport save and except the business of Time Travel. He became power of attorney holder just to save M/s. Sureka Air Transport from litigation after the death of his mother. He had no occasion to look after and/or to take part in any other business of M/s. Sureka Air Transport save and except the business of Time Travel. He became power of attorney holder just to save M/s. Sureka Air Transport from litigation after the death of his mother. He never involved himself in the affairs of the said transportation business and that the said business was closed after some time upon the death of his mother and that the petitioner Rajendra Prasad Khaitan was appointed as a constituted attorney by her of the said firm the learned counsel added only to deal with the taxation matter and not the administrative matter. 5. It was alleged that consignment note did not bear the Truck number. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner Rajendra Prasad Khaitan submitted that the consignment note would bear the description of goods only. The truck number used to be mentioned in the road challan issued by the consignor and here the medical authority issued the road challan bearing the Truck No. WB 03 1911 and the goods were delivered by the said truck to the consignee. 6. With reference to allegation levelled against the petitioner Biplab Majumdar, the learned counsel submitted that the defence of the petitioner stands on similar footing. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the above goods consisting of 240 bales 3895 Kg. under voucher No.160/1/93 and 40 bales 1520 Kg under voucher No.40/1/93 were delivered to the consignee by Truck Nos. OSB 4377 and WB 03 1911 at various places including Jarmundi which would be evident from the acknowledgement made by Sri Madan Lal (coaccused) in token of receipt of goods. In view of that, it cannot be alleged that transporter never transported the goods to the consignee. 8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. opposed such contentionsand submitted that the Investigating Officer after investigation of case could be able to produce sufficient materials before the Court by filing charge sheet and the case diary and that the Special Judge having been satisfied with the prima facie materials in the case diary took cognizance of the offence and also rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Indian Procedure after carefully gone into the entire materials on record. 9. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I find substancein the argument of the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. that the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad after having been prima facie satisfied with the materials available in the case diary rejected the petition of the petitioners preferred under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge by a speaking order. Prima facie satisfaction can be interpreted as subjective satisfaction of the Court concerned either for taking cognizance of the offence or to put the accused on trial after framing of charge. Points raised for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been meticulously dealt with by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners failed to show any positive ground so as to call for interference in the impugned order. The defence of the petitioners can well be appreciated at the stage of trial by cross examining the witnesses and testing their credibility. 10. There being no merit, both the criminal revisions are dismissed.