Order Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in connection with RC Case no. 07(A)/09-D and for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court XIII-cum-Special Judge, CBI against the petitioners under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and" Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel of the petitioner submits that so far the petitioner no. 1 namely Subir Ghosh is concerned, it has been alleged against him in the charge sheet that he signed on the Bi-annual report for the period ending June, 2008 and performance report dated 11.11.2008 and graded the performance of the ESM Company and the reports as "satisfactory" despite the fact that M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. had not adhered to the provisions of MOU which was in his knowledge and conditions prescribed by the DGR for an ESM Company. He also did not verify before signing the report which turned out to be false and fabricated during the investigation. Thus, he abused his official position in causing undue loss to BCCL, Dhanbad and undue gain to Mis Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. So far the petitioner no. 2 namely Bibhash Chandra Maji is concerned it has been alleged against him in the charge sheet that he issued errs to M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. for transportation of coal during the period from 1.4.2008 to 28.2.2009 despite knowing well that the company was not complying with the provisions of MOU and the conditions prescribed by the office of DGR. He also issued further order to the said ESM Company for coal transportation and permitted to use hired vehicles from the private transporters/parties. Thus, he abused his official position in causing undue loss to BCCL and undue gain to M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. So far the petitioner no. He also issued further order to the said ESM Company for coal transportation and permitted to use hired vehicles from the private transporters/parties. Thus, he abused his official position in causing undue loss to BCCL and undue gain to M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. So far the petitioner no. 3 namely Tarunkanti Bandyopadhyay @ Tarun Kanti Bandopadhyay is concerned, it has been alleged in the charge sheet against him that he recommended for extension of the tenure of said ESM company for another term by specifically mentioning the performance of the company as "satisfactory" in the proposal moved vide Note sheet dated 28.2.2009 despite the fact that knowing fully that M/s Natraj Transport (P) Ltd. had not submitted bi-annual reports for which letters were issued by him to the said ESM Company. 4. Mr. Sinha has further contended that a scheme to raise Ex-Service Men (ESM) Coal Transportation Company was formulated between the erstwhile Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Defence in the year 1979 with the aim of having union free captive transport organization in the coal subsidiaries and providing an opportunity to ex-service men for resettlement. The scheme had been successful and mutually beneficial to both the parties. Though instructions/guidelines existed on formation of running of ex-service men coal transportation companies, the terms and conditions governing formation of these companies were revised by the Director General of Resettlement and Coal India Limited and a memorandum of understanding was executed on 16.4.1999, which is in vogue till date. The said MOU dated 16.4.1999 is annexed with the petition as Annexure-3. 5. Mr. Sinha has submitted that according to the Clause-4 of the aforesaid MOU dated 16.4.1999, the responsibility of the DGR to ensure that all individuals forming or participating in the private limited are only entitled ESM/widows/ dependents and they are suitable and financially sound and likewise, Clause 7 of the said MOU provides for the number of ESM employees in the ESM Company shall be minimum of 75% of the total regular employees and the DGR will arrange for random spot checks to ensure compliance thereof. The said MOU vide Clause 20 (c) further provides that DGR and the CIL/Coal Subsidiaries will fully cooperate and constantly endeavour to devise measures to ensure compliance of various provisions of MOU and other conditions laid down by MOD/CIL from time to time. The said MOU vide Clause 20 (c) further provides that DGR and the CIL/Coal Subsidiaries will fully cooperate and constantly endeavour to devise measures to ensure compliance of various provisions of MOU and other conditions laid down by MOD/CIL from time to time. Further DGR should evolve a system to ensure compliance of MOU provisions regarding deployment of ex-service men. their vehicles, their payments and the constitution of board of directors. In case DGR finds anything in variance with the MOU provisions on these, his office will inform the Cil and initiate suitable action. Further the Clause 21 (a) of the MOU mandates that an ESM Company to submit half-yearly returns in the proforma to be issued by the DGR. Further, Clause 21 (b) provides that specific/ relevant portions of the reports concerning the coal subsidiary will be authenticated by the authorized representative of the coal subsidiary. Clause 21 (c) of the MOU dated 16.4.1999 states that the aim of these reports among others is to check deployment of vehicles/equipments, percentage of ESM, detect irregularities, if any and to monitor the progress of ESM Company by DGR. lastly Clause 21 (d) provides that non-submission of specified reports or incorrect fact/figures may result in cancellation of sponsorship/non-renewal of the contract. The Clause-10 of the said MOU speaks about the period of contract. The initial contract may be valid for five years from the date of commencement of work. The Clause-11 is regarding the renewal of the contract. The renewal of the contract of the another term of four years may be considered by the Coal Subsidiary and DGR jointly provided the past performance and functioning of the ESM Co. has been satisfactory and employment of ex-service men has been as per the laid down policy, for which the coal subsidiary should send the proposal to DGR. 6. Mr. Sinha has contended that as per the terms of the aforesaid MOU the petitioners cannot be liable in any manner neither they are not Under any obligation, only DGR is the person who is responsible and he is under obligation to ensure the compliance of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid MOU. 6. Mr. Sinha has contended that as per the terms of the aforesaid MOU the petitioners cannot be liable in any manner neither they are not Under any obligation, only DGR is the person who is responsible and he is under obligation to ensure the compliance of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid MOU. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held criminally liable and thus the criminal proceeding instituted and cognizance taken against them are absolutely illegal and the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them and the order taking cognizance should be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Mokhtar Khan the learned counsel of the C.B.I. submits that the aforesaid Clause 20(c) of the MOU clearly shows that the DGR and the CIL/Coal Subsidiaries will ensure the compliance of various of provisions of MOU and other conditions laid down by MOD/CIL from time to time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not responsible. Mr. Khan has further submitted the order taking cognizance clearly shows that the court below after perusing and considering' the materials on records including the case diary, has come to a conclusion that there is prima-face case of the offence under the aforesaid sections 120B, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the accused persons including the petitioners. 8. Mr. Khan has further submitted that for taking cognizance only prima-facie case has to be established. Meticulous examination of probabilities or in probabilities is not required. 9. Having heard the parties and perused the records, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court XIII-cum-Special Judge, CBI. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is, hereby, dismissed.