Order : Initially this application was filed for quashing of the order dated 5th March, 2011 passed in Vigilance P.S. Case No.68 of 2010 (Special Case No.85 of 2010) whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been taken against the petitioner. 2. Subsequently, when the prayer for discharge was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2012, that order was also challenged along with the order under which charges has been framed. 3. 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 and to 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/supervising of construction work of the building of the schools indulged themselves in corrupt practices and thereby, they put the Government to heavy loss. 4. 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 pretext 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, an order was passed by the petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro upon which the then District Superintendent of Education-cum-Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro deputed 7 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 petitioner, deputed them in different blocks for 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 01.12.2004. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. After they received training at DIET, the petitioner, deputed them in different blocks for 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 01.12.2004. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 07.02.2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. When the then Minister concerned came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools work which was 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 from the construction work of the school. However, 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 Petarbar block as well as other blocks and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School. 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 up for investigation and after completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406,409, 467, 478, 471 & 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken. 6. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging the petitioner from the case, by taking plea that this petitioner, who was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro under the order of the Government had passed an order for deputation of seven teachers to do construction work of the building of the schools situated in Peterbar Block as well as other blocks and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School and apart from that, he did not do anything so as to be put on trial for commission of offences of cheating, misappropriation or forgery, still his prayer was rejected vide order dated 05.09.2012. 7. 7. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 05.03.2011 and 05.09.2012, this application has been filed. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when it was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court by way of Public Interest Litigation that one school teacher, namely, Ashok Kumar Bharti has been deputed to function as Junior Engineer to supervise the construction of the building of 124 primary schools and the buildings of other schools in the district of Bokaro, the Hon’ble Court directed the Vigilance to enquire into as to who are the persons responsible for deputation of Assistant Teachers for the purpose of civil work under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro and secondly, to initiate a proceeding against the persons involved in the financial bungling of the public school. 9. The matter was taken up for enquiry. During which it was found that pursuant to the decision taken in the Reflection-cum-Planning Meeting at Ranchi, some of the teachers having diploma in engineering were deputed to have training at DIET so that they be entrusted with the job of supervision of the construction of the building of different schools. Among them, one Ashok Kumar Bharti was also sent for training. Thereupon the petitioner vide its letter dated 01.12.2004 deputed them to do construction work of the building of the schools. Subsequently, when it was felt by the higher officials of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan that progress of the work is too slow, a decision was taken to entrust the job of construction of the building of each school to Ashok Kumar Bharti so that fund may not lapse. Pursuant to that decision, Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh from 4.7.2007 to 21.10.2008 entrusted work to Ashok Kumar Bharti to construct the school buildings situated in Petarbar Block as well as other blocks and also the school buildings of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner being Deputy Commissioner under the order of the Government had deputed the Assistant teachers to take up the matter of construction of the building of the school. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner being Deputy Commissioner under the order of the Government had deputed the Assistant teachers to take up the matter of construction of the building of the school. That apart, no role was played in any manner by the petitioner facilitating Ashok Kumar Bharti to draw money unauthorizedly or illegally, still the prayer for discharge was rejected in spite of the fact that the materials are not there to show act of connivance, facilitating Ashok Kumar Bharti to draw money fraudulently and dishonestly. 10. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Amit Kapoo vs. Ramesh Chandra and another [ (2012) 9 SCC 460 ] and also in a case of State of U.P through C.B.I vs. Dr. Sanjay Singh and another [(1994) Supp (2) SCC 707]. 11. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that during investigation of the case, it has been found that the petitioner and the officers of the Education Department in connivance with each other, entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti, an Assistant Teacher with the job of construction of the school building, who misappropriated huge amount and that according to the confessional statement made by the co-accused Sanjay Prasad, who was the driver of the Ashok Kumar Bharti, used to visit the official residence of this petitioner for giving money as bribe and in that situation, it can be said that ample materials are there, showing culpability on the part of this petitioner and, therefore, the court has rightly rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. 12. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that in the entire process of the alleged acts e.g. deputing the teachers for training of the schools, who were having diploma/degree in engineering, deputation in the blocks to take construction or to supervise the construction of the building of the schools and then payment of the amount to those teachers without completion of the construction of the building to that extent to which payments were taken, petitioner’s role only appears to be of deputing Ashok Kumar Bharti and others in different schools of Petarbar Block and other blocks for constructing buildings of the schools. 13. 13. Thus, the question does arise as to whether this accusation would be sufficient to put the petitioner on trial ? 14. It is well settled that in a case where upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted before it, the court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to such prosecution under the provisions of the Code or any other law for the time being in force and that there exists no ground to proceed against the accused, the court may discharge the accused. 15. In this respect, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Union of India vs. Major J.S. Khanna [ (1972) 3 SCC 873 ] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court did opine thereunder: “22. It is true that at the stage when the Special Judge drew up charges and decided to proceed with the case on the footing of a conspiracy to defraud the Government, he had only to see that there was a prima facie case against the two respondents. That could also be the basis upon which the High Court had to try upon two revision applications. Even so, there had to be some material before the Special Judge which could point towards a conspiracy in which the two respondents had joined. Such of the statements which the investigating officer could procure did not as the High Court observed, point to such a conspiracy. What appears to have been lost sight of by the Special Judge was the fact that the period during which the orders in question were placed was an emergency period, when procedure laid down for such orders could not perhaps be strictly adhered to. He also appears to have lost sight of the fact that out of the thirteen orders in question, four of the value of Rs.32,000/-and odd were placed by Brig. Mani, and orders only for the balance of Rs.8000/-and odd were placed by Res. Khanna. It may be that someone had played fraud in the matter of quotations in the name of Darrang Transport, United Motor Works, Auto Stores, etc. But unless there was some material at least to link these two officers with the person who tendered those quotations, it is difficult to say that there were conspirators who had joined with the rest of the accused to defraud the Government. But unless there was some material at least to link these two officers with the person who tendered those quotations, it is difficult to say that there were conspirators who had joined with the rest of the accused to defraud the Government. In these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Mukherje that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that no prima facie case had been made out against either of the two officers.” Further in a case of State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa [ (1996) 4 SCC 659 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “30. In Antulay case Bhagwati, C.J., opined, after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs of sections, that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of ‘prima facie’ case has to be applied. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. In our view, a better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. 31. Let us note the meaning of the word ‘presume’. In Black’s Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean to believe or accept upon probable evidence. In shorter Oxford Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law ‘presume’ means ‘to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming.’ Stroud’s Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which ‘A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged.’ In Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar the same quotation finds place at P.1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of material on record, a court could come to the conclusion hat commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of material on record, a court could come to the conclusion hat commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might be committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 16. So far the instant case is concerned, I have already indicated that the prosecution has come forward with the case that the petitioner deputed Ashok Kumar Bharti and other teachers for constructing buildings of Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools and other schools situated in Petarbar Block and other blocks, but that order was passed by the petitioner, when the policy decision had been taken by the Government to impart training to those teachers having diploma of Civil Engineering and after having training at DIET, they be entrusted with the Job of Junior Engineers for constructing or supervising the construction work. Simply for this act, the petitioner has been made accused, without there being any further material showing connivance of this petitioner with Ashok Kumar Bharti and others, who without completing the construction work, did draw the money fraudulently and dishonestly. 17. Further, it has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance that connivance of this petitioner with Ashok Kumar Bharti becomes evident from the statement made by the co-accused-the driver of Ashok Kumar Bharti wherein he had disclosed that Ashok Kumar Bharti used to give bribe to this petitioner, but any statement made by the co-accused before the police would not have any evidentiary value and, therefore, that piece of material cannot be used against the petitioner for showing his act of conspiracy as apart from that, nothing seems to be there against the petitioner except the fact of deputation of teachers in different blocks. Therefore, one can easily come to the conclusion that there has not been sufficient material against the petitioner to put the petitioner for trial. 18. Therefore, one can easily come to the conclusion that there has not been sufficient material against the petitioner to put the petitioner for trial. 18. Accordingly, order dated 05.09.2012 under which prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the accusation, has been rejected and also the order framing charge are hereby, set aside. Consequently the petitioner is discharged from the case. 19. In the result, this application stands allowed. 20. Consequently, I.A. No.7275 of 2013 is also disposed of. Application allowed.