JUDGMENT 1. - By way of above-mentioned five criminal revision petitions, the accused petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No. 4/2010, whereby charges for offence under Sections 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), had been framed against them. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of these petitions are, that an information was received by C.B.I. to the effect that Mr. K. Ponnuchamy, Chairman & Managing Director, Mr. O.P. Jain, Financial Advisor cum General Manager (Accounts), and Mr. Dwarkesh Shukal, General Manager Technical, while working as such, as public servants in the Hindustan Salt Ltd./Samber Salt Ltd., in connivance with the private persons of M/s Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., Ajwa Road, Baroda (Gujarat), entered into a criminal conspiracy, and by their acts of commission and omission, caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 1.14 crore to the Hindustan Salt Ltd./Samber Salt Ltd., and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves in awarding work order for the installation of 450 TPA Bromine plant at Kharaghoda (Gujarat) against the conditions laid down in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) and violating CVC guidelines. 3. Regular Case No. RC JAI 2007 A 0019 under Section 120B IPC and 13(1)(d of the Act was registered on 18.12.2007. From the statements of 1 witnesses recorded during investigation as also from the documents, as well as expert opinion obtained by Investigating Officer, it revealed that so as to increase the capacity of its Bromine plant at Kharaghoda (Gujarat) from 450 TPA to 900 TPA plant, fund of Rs. 3.60 crore was received by HSL/SSL. Therefore, a NIT was published on 3.4.2004 inviting Detailed Project Report (DPR) to Install 450 TPA Bromine plant at Kharaghoda, and M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., Baroda, was awarded the work order on 17.9.2004 at a cost of Rs. 5 lac (excluding taxes) for preparing the Detailed Project Report. 3.60 crore was received by HSL/SSL. Therefore, a NIT was published on 3.4.2004 inviting Detailed Project Report (DPR) to Install 450 TPA Bromine plant at Kharaghoda, and M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., Baroda, was awarded the work order on 17.9.2004 at a cost of Rs. 5 lac (excluding taxes) for preparing the Detailed Project Report. The DPR dated 13.8.2005 was prepared by M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. on 4.10.2005 and as per the DPR the project cost under different heads was shown as 349.82 lac and this work comprised of Erected Plant & Machineries, Plant Building & Civil Construction and for other miscellaneous expenses like Preliminary and Pre-operative expenses, Contingencies etc. 4. On the basis of this DPR, Mr. K. Ponnuchamy, CMD, ordered for publication of Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) on 19.10.2005 for installation of 450 TPA Bromine plant at Kharaghoda. In response to the NIT publication, the three companies, being M/s. Ablaze Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Ms/. Super Scientific Works Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, and also M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, [ownership/management of all the three was with the same group (owned by relatives of the family of Mr. Hemant H. Goel)] submitted their tenders and contested in the tender proceedings. Eventually the work was awarded to M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, whereas in view of CVC order dated 24.12.2004, which was received by HSL on 11.1.2005, M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., was to be straight away debarred from participating in the tender proceedings because it had prepared and submitted the DPR for the same project. 5. The allegations against others i.e. Mr. H.C. Dadheech, the then Senior General Manager (Commercial), Mr. O.P. Jain, Financial Advisor & General Manager (Accounts), Mr. Dwarkesh Shukal, General Manager (Technical), as also Mr. Rajesh Arora, Senior Manager (P&A), HSL, Jaipur, were that along with Mr. K. Ponnuchamy, they also were part of criminal conspiracy with M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., and so as to give undue benefit to the accused company, allowed its participation in the tender process and subsequently allotted the project work to it. Further, that initially on 29.3.2006, M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., quoted a rate of Rs. 3.16 crore, whereas made a revised offer of As. Further, that initially on 29.3.2006, M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., quoted a rate of Rs. 3.16 crore, whereas made a revised offer of As. 2.80 crore on 29.4.2006, and after the techno-commercial discussions, new items were added and certain others deleted, and the offer of M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., was further reduced to Rs. 2.78 crore after negotiations. Based on the tender proceedings, the offer of M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. was declared L-1 by the HTC on 25.4.2006, which was approved by the CMD Mr. K. Ponnuchamy. Accordingly M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. was awarded the Work Order on 19.8.2006 for Rs. 2.78 crore towards installation of the 450 TPA Bromine plant. Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 2.5.2006 was issued to the company by Mr. Dwarkesh Shukal for acceptance of the order for supply of 450 TPA Bromine plant at Kharaghoda Unit, Gujarat, on turnkey basis at a total cost of Rs. 2.78 crore. M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. was also asked to submit a revised DPR according to the accepted rates and subsequently M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. submitted another DPR dated 10.5.2006 showing the cost of work as Rs. 2.78 crore. 6. The allegations against the CMD Mr. K. Ponnuchamy and other members of the tender committee (the petitioners herein-above), were that despite knowing about the CVC order dated 24.12.2004, whereby M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., on account of its having made detailed report for the same project and thus, was straight-way debarred from contesting the tender, they allowed it to file tender and then recommended the award of L-1 to it. 7. The allegation against Mr. Rajesh Arora, the petitioner of petition no.506/2011, was that he being one of the members of tender committee at the relevant time, and thus a party to the award of contract to M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., was party to the criminal conspiracy. He is alleged to have signed the minutes of the tender committee dated 25.4.2006 and 29.4.2006, whereby besides the recommendation to award the work to M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., the terms of work were also altered and final price was negotiated. 8. The allegation against the registered company M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., having Mr. He is alleged to have signed the minutes of the tender committee dated 25.4.2006 and 29.4.2006, whereby besides the recommendation to award the work to M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., the terms of work were also altered and final price was negotiated. 8. The allegation against the registered company M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., having Mr. Hemant H. Goel as its Managing Director (petitioner of revision petition no. 503/2011), was that it had submitted the DPR on 13.8.2005 for commissioning of 450 TPA plant at Kharaghoda, and as per CVC order dated 24.12.2004, this company making project report, could not have been selected for the commission and execution of the same project. 9. Mr. Naresh Goel, petitioner of revision petition no. 1258/2010, was the Managing Director cum Chairman of M/s. Super Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Dushyant H. Goel was the Managing Director of M/s. Ablaze Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Hemant H. Goel, petitioner of revision petition no. 503/2011, was the Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. (who prepared the DPR and to whom L-1 was awarded), and was also the real brother of Mr. Dushyant H. Goel (petitioner of revision petition no. 505/2011), and the Managing Director of M/s. Ablaze Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., who also contested the tender. Likewise, Mr. Naresh Goel (petitioner of revision petition no. 1258/2010), was the Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s Super Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. He is also stated to be related to the other two petitioners i.e. Hemant H. Goel and Dushyant H. Goyal. All the three, who participated in the tender proceedings through their different companies, were also partners in a M/s. Boro Glass International Baroda, which had been subcontracted for the work of installation of 450 TPA Bromine plant at Kharaghoda, Gujarat. 10. The case of the prosecution was that Mr. K. Ponnuchamy, being the Chief Executive of the HSL, presided over the HTC constituted for the tender proceedings for award of work for Supply & Installation of the plant on turnkey basis, and the other accused public servants namely Mr. H.C. Dadheech, the revisionist in revision petition no. 504/2011 and others, were members of the HTC and that fraudulent criminal acts of commission and omission on the part of Mr. K. Ponnuchamy (not before us) Mr. H.C. Dadheech, revisionist no. 504/2011, Mr. H.C. Dadheech, the revisionist in revision petition no. 504/2011 and others, were members of the HTC and that fraudulent criminal acts of commission and omission on the part of Mr. K. Ponnuchamy (not before us) Mr. H.C. Dadheech, revisionist no. 504/2011, Mr. O.P. Jain and others, Mr. Rajesh Arora (revisionist in 506/2011), along with others (who are not before us), as also Mr. Hemant H. Goel, the Managing Director of M/s Goel Scientific Glass 1 Works Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Naresh Goel, the Managing Director of M/s. Super Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., and Mr. Dushyahnt Goel, Managing Director of M/s. Ablaze Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., caused a cumulative wrongful loss to the Hindustan Salts Ltd., and corresponding gain to the accused HSL officials and accused Firm and such acts are punishable under Section 120B IPC read with 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. 11. During investigation, Mr. K. Ponnuchamy expired in October 20d9. Mr. H.C. Dadheech, Senior General Manager (Commercial), retired from service, therefore, no sanction for prosecution was obtained. During the investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer recorded as many as 27 statements. 12. I have gone through the order impugned as also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, in particular the statements of witness no.27 as also the statements of PW.5, PW.6, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.17, as well as alleged inflated invoices issued by M/s. Goel Scientific Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. I find that there was sufficient material before the learned trial court to proceed further against the petitioners. 13. The Apex Court has, time and again, held that at the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 or while considering the discharge petitions filed under Section 227 of the Code, the Judge concerned does not have to analyse all the material including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability thereof etc., but has only to see if there is grave suspicion against the person to be charged or not. It is only at the trial that the judge concerned has to appreciate evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the material, veracity of various documents, and is free to take a decision one way or the other, but not at the state of charge/discharge. 14. In the case in hand there was sufficient material available on record to prima facie frame charge against the petitioners. 14. In the case in hand there was sufficient material available on record to prima facie frame charge against the petitioners. The Apex Court has, in Its latest decision in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , held in para 19 that at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to say that there Is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. It is a settled position- of law that the presumption of guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie, whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. 15. The arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner Mr. Rajesh Arora, that he had been inducted in the HTC by the orders of the Chairman later, but he had no knowledge and he was a person of Personnel Department, is not sustainable at this stage because the fact of the matter is that when the relevant decisions were made, he was a member of the committee and participated in the committee meetings and has signed the minutes of the tender. 16. This court would not like to express any opinion on the factual matrix because that may indirectly prejudice one or the other party. 17. On the basis of material placed on record it cannot be said that the order of framing of charge against the petitioners by the trial judge was either bad in law or is an abuse of process of law or without any material. 18. Before parting, it appears to be just and proper to direct the learned trial court to expeditiously dispose of the matter without, in any manner, being influenced by any observation made by this court in this order. 19. The revision petitions have no merit, hence dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The stay applications also stand disposed.All Revisions Dismissed. *******