ORDER 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 5.9.2012 passed in Special Case No.85 of 2010 (Vigilance P.S. case no.68 of 2010) whereby and whereunder an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for discharge was rejected. 2. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P(PIL) No.1530 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department wherein it was found that in spite of Junior Engineers of Building Division being available, Assistant Teachers, who were having diploma/degree were deputed to supervise/ construct building of primary schools and other schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro district under the sponsored programme of the Government. They in course of constructing building of the schools indulged themselves in corrupt practices and thereby they put the Government to heavy loss. 3. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR was lodged wherein it was alleged that in the meeting of Reflection-cum-Planning held at Ranchi, a decision was taken, on the plea of dearth of Junior Engineers, to impart training to the teachers having diploma in engineering so that they may be entrusted with the job of construction/supervision of the building of the schools. Pursuant to that decision, the then District Superintendent of Education-cum-Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro deputed six teachers for having training at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Ratu, Ranchi, vide its letter dated 5.5.2004. After they received training at DIET, the then Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro deputed them in different blocks for constructing/supervising the work of construction of the building of new primary schools and upgraded schools, vide its letter as contained in memo no.998 dated 1.12.2004. By the said order Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gumla block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chota Nagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 7.2.2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the school situated in Chandankiyari block. Thereafter the then Minister concerned when came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools work whichwas supposed to be done by the engineer is being taken, he immediately passed an order for stopping that practice. Pursuant to that, the teachers were relieved of from the construction work of the school. Thereafter the then Minister concerned when came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools work whichwas supposed to be done by the engineer is being taken, he immediately passed an order for stopping that practice. Pursuant to that, the teachers were relieved of from the construction work of the school. But then Regional Deputy Director, vide its letter dated 27.12.2010 passed an order directing Ashok Kumar Bharti for adjustment of the amount taken in advance and by that time it was to be done, he was allowed to do the said work which was entrusted to him. Thereafter the then Regional Deputy Director, Hazaribagh, vide its letter dated 17.9.2007 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti with the construction work of the building of the schools situated in Petarwar block and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School. 4. So far this petitioner is concerned, it has been alleged that the petitioner while was posted as Assistant Teacher in Utkramit Middle School, Dania, he received a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs for construction of the building of the said school but that remained unadjusted. 5. Thus, it has been alleged that teachers in contravention of the Rule of the Government were deputed to do the construction work/supervising the construction work of the building of the schools and they in that course, misappropriated huge amount. The matter was taken for investigation and after completion of the investigation, when charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406,409, 120B, 467,468, 471,109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken. Subsequently, an application for discharge was filed which was rejected, vide order dated 5.9.2012. 6. Being aggrieved with the order, this application has been filed. 7. Mr. R.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only allegation which has been attributed against the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, who was posted in Utkramit Middle School, Dania, is that he received a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs for construction of the said building which remained unadjusted and thereby it is alleged that the said amount has been misappropriated but the fact is that upon receiving the said amount, the petitioner transferred the said amount to Ashok Kumar Bharti in view of the letter dated 12.3.2009 issued by the District Superintendent of Education. 8. 8. Further it was submitted that total amount which had been sanctioned for construction of the building was Rs.5.54 lacs. After transferring the amount which has been received by the petitioner as 1st instalment, 2nd instalment of Rs.2,04,150/- was sent but the petitioner refused to accept it and thereby the said amount of Rs.2,04,150/- was never in dispute. 9. It was further submitted that so far the fact that the petitioner having received a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs had transferred the amount to Ashok Kumar Bharti has been accepted in the counter affidavit which would be evident from paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 10. In this situation, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either of misappropriation, cheating or forgery. 11. As against this, Mr.Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that the petitioner has projected the case as that of only a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs has been received by way of 1st instalment but in fact, a sum of Rs.5.54 lacs had been sanctioned which had been received by the petitioner but the said amount has never been accounted for and thereby the petitioner has been alleged to have misappropriated the said amount in connivance with Ashok Kumar Bharti and that any denial of the fact that the petitioner did not receive the amount of Rs.2,04,150/- at this stage cannot be accepted. 12. It was further submitted that the petitioner being Secretary of Gram Shiksha Samiti had withdrawn a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs and got it misappropriated in connivance with Ashok Kumar Bharti and that the petitioner can not be allowed to take advantage of the letter dated 12.3.2009 said to have been issued by the District Superintendent of Education as he is also an accused in this case. 13. In the context of the submission made on behalf of the Vigilance that apart from Rs.3.36 lacs, a sum of Rs.2,04,150/- has also been misappropriated, I may refer to the FIR wherein at page 60 of the FIR, the amount which has been received for construction of the building of Utkramit Middle School, Dania, has been shown. It has been shown that out of estimated amount of Rs.5.54 lacs only a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs have been received and only that amount was shown to have been not adjusted. It has been shown that out of estimated amount of Rs.5.54 lacs only a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs have been received and only that amount was shown to have been not adjusted. Further from the submission made on the basis of the statement made in the counter affidavit it is quite clear that the amount said to have been misappropriated is only Rs.3.36 lacs. Therefore, in that view of the matter, any plea taken by the Vigilance that further a sum of Rs.2,04,150/- had been received by the petitioner cannot be accepted as it has never been the case of the prosecution. 14. Further going into the matter, it be stated that the statement made by the petitioner that a sum of Rs.3.36 lacs which had been received by him had been transferred to Ashok Kumar Bharti has been accepted on behalf of the Vigilance in his counter affidavit filed in connection with a case but with a wrong number which has been brought on record by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit. In that event, the petitioner cannot be said to have misappropriated a single farthing. So far plea of connivance is concerned, this plea has been taken for sake of argument only as no act of connivance other than the act of transferring the money to Ashok Kumar Bharti has been brought on record. 15. For establishing act of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution needs to come forward with following accusation. 1. that the court agreed to do or caused to be done an act. 2. that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means. 3. that some act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement. 16. At the same time, it has been well established that where the agreement is to do or caused to be done an act which is itself an offence no overt act needs to be proved, the crime of offence of criminal conspiracy is established once such crime is proved. 17. Nothing seems to be there against the petitioner that he transferred the money in the account of Ashok Kumar Bharti as he was in connivance with Ashok Kumar Bharti, rather transfer has been made under the direction given by the District Superintendent of Education in his letter. 17. Nothing seems to be there against the petitioner that he transferred the money in the account of Ashok Kumar Bharti as he was in connivance with Ashok Kumar Bharti, rather transfer has been made under the direction given by the District Superintendent of Education in his letter. Therefore, this act done by the petitioner cannot be said to be sufficient to proceed against the petitioner. 18. So far the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the petitioner has simply been alleged to have transferred the money but he has never been alleged to have done by adopting corrupt practices or illegal means for having pecuniary advantage/valuable thing by himself or by any other person. The aforesaid essential ingredient constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d)(c) is completely lacking as nothing could be placed to show even an iota of evidence/material of receiving pecuniary advantage and as such, no material seems to be there for prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 19. The court below did not consider all these aspects of the matter at all and thereby it can certainly be said to have committed illegality in refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case. Accordingly, it is set aside. 20. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the case. 21. Thus, this application stands allowed.