ORDER By the Court.-This revision application is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance in Special Case No. 85 of 2010 (Vigilance Case No. 68 of 2010) registered under Sections 403, 109, 120-B, 406, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby and whereunder the prayer for discharge of the petitioner 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 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. 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 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 Mr. Arun Kumar, the then 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 05/05/2004. After they received training at DIET, the then Deputy Commissioner 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. 4. 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. 4. It has also come during investigation that this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro had entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to do the construction work of the building of two other blocks vide letter dated 11.2.2006. When the then Minister concerned came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools the work which was supposed to be dope 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 17/09/2007 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. So far the petitioner is concerned, it has been alleged that while he was posted at Bokaro as Deputy Superintendent of Education from 10.11.2004 to 6.7.2007, he vide its letter dated 11.02.2006, deputed Ashok Kumar Bharti to do construction work of the schools situated in other two blocks and that the petitioner handed over a cheque to Ashok Kumar Bharti instead of sending the cheque to the concerned account of the committee. It has also come that the account was supposed to be opened for the said purpose of construction of building in the name of the President and Secretary of the Building Construction Committee, but instead of that, account was opened in the name of Secretary of the said Committee as well as in the name of Ashok Kumar Bharti to whom cheque was given by this petitioner. 6. 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, in conspiracy with each other misappropriated huge amount. 7. 6. 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, in conspiracy with each other misappropriated huge amount. 7. 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 120-B, 406, 409, 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, was taken. 8. 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 had never deputed Ashok Kumar Bharti for allowing him to do rest of the work, rather it was for other purpose which was in the interest of the Government. 9. In this regard, a plea was taken that the petitioner vide letter dated 23.12.2006 had made request to Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagapur, Hazaribagh to allow him to depute Ashok Kumar Bharti to assess the extent of work done earlier by him so that the amount advanced to him could be adjusted. In spite of that, the Vigilance took it that the petitioner has allowed Ashok Kumar Bharti to do left over construction work and that nothing is there to show that the petitioner used to clear bills only upon payment of illegal gratification. That application was dismissed, vide order dated 5.9.2012. 10. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 11. Mr. That application was dismissed, vide order dated 5.9.2012. 10. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 11. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being District Superintendent of Education had given charge on two additional schools to Ashok Kumar Bharti but the reason far giving additional charge to him was that the person, who had been entrusted to do the construction work in the said two schools, had left the job and hence, the petitioner was instructed by the Higher Authority to get the work done at the earliest whereas accusation has been made against the petitioner that this petitioner allowed Ashok Kumar Bharti to do the left over construction work but that allegation gets falsified from the letter dated 23.12.2006 wherein this petitioner had made request to Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh to allow him to depute Ashok Kumar Bharti to assess the extent of work done earlier by him so that the amount advanced to him could be adjusted and that there has been absolutely no material to establish that the petitioner used to clear bills only upon payment of illegal gratification. 12. Under the circumstances, the Court should have discharged the petitioner but by not doing so, the Court committed illegality. 13. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that during preliminary enquiry it had come that when Ashok Kumar Bharti was entrusted with the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated at Petarwar blocks as well as other blocks and also the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools, account was supposed to be opened in the name of the President and Secretary of the Building Construction Committee, but instead of opening the account in the aforesaid name, the account was opened in the name of the Secretary of the said Committee as well as in the name of Ashok Kumar Bharti and the cheque was given to Ashok Kumar Bharti by this petitioner. 14. It has also come that some persons involved in the case had received gratification from Ashok Kumar Bharti which would be evident from the statements made by Ashok Kumar Bharti himself and also by some other persons, namely, Pushpa Kumari, Jayant Kumar Singh, Md. 14. It has also come that some persons involved in the case had received gratification from Ashok Kumar Bharti which would be evident from the statements made by Ashok Kumar Bharti himself and also by some other persons, namely, Pushpa Kumari, Jayant Kumar Singh, Md. Shami, Dhaneshwar Ram, Bhuth Nath Manjhi and therefore, in the aforesaid complicity, the petitioner does not deserves to be discharged. 15. Upon hearing counsel for the parties, it does appear that the prosecution has come with two incriminating circumstances against the petitioner. Firstly, that the petitioner had deputed Ashok Kumar Bharti to do the construction work of the school of other block other than the school in which he was doing construction work and that the petitioner did allow Ashok Kumar Bharti to do the left over construction work. Secondly, it is said that the petitioner had given cheque to Ashok Kumar Bharti but from the letter dated 23.12.2006 which is part of the record relating to investigation, it does appear that this petitioner had made request, vide its letter to the Regional Deputy Director, North Chotanagpur, Hazariagh to allow him to depute Ashok Kumar Bharti to assess the extent of work done earlier by him so that the amount advanced to him could be adjusted. If that is so, no criminality can be attached over the act done by the petitioner of deputation of Ashok Kumar Bharti for doing construction work of other two blocks. 16. Further, nothing was placed before this Court that it was the petitioner, who had given a cheque to Ashok Kumar Bharti. Moreover, no cheque which has been alleged to have been given by this petitioner to Ashok Kumar Bharti is part of the record. 17. In such situation, it would not be proper and appropriate to put the petitioner on trial. 18. 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. 19. 19. In this respect, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Union of India v. 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. 8,000/- 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. 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." 20. Further in a case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "30. 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." 20. Further in a case of State of Maharashtra v. 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 that 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. 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." 21. So far the instant case is concerned. I have already indicated that though the prosecution has come forward with the case that the petitioner had deputed Ashok Kumar Bharti to do construction work of other school also but from the letter as indicated above which is part of the record, it does appear that it was done for allowing Ashok Kumar Bharti to do adjustment of the amount advanced to him. 22. Further. I do find that nothing is there on the record to show that the petitioner had given cheque to Ashok Kumar Bharti. 23. It further appears that though submission was made that illegal gratification has been received but from perusal of the materials, it does appear that the witnesses and also Ashok Kumar Bharti had never made any such statement that this petitioner had ever received any illegal gratification, rather that allegation is upon other accused person. 24. Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that no legal evidence is there for putting the petitioner to trial. The learned Vigilance Judge did not consider the matter from this perspective and, hence, he committed illegality in rejecting the application for discharge. 25. Under the circumstances, the order dated 5.9.2012, under which prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the accusation has been rejected, is hereby set aside. Consequently the petitioner is discharged from the case. 26. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.