JUDGMENT INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision has been made to an order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No. 32 of 1994 whereby the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.) has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner-company for discharge. 2. This case has a long checkered history and on several occasions the parties have approached this Court seeking discharge. The first of such occasions was in Criminal Revision No. 543 of 1996 wherein the accused No. 1 i.e. the present petitioner-company along with one P.R. Maniktlala had prayed to set aside the order dated 31.07.1995, by which the learned Additional C.J.M. Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offence. This Court partly allowed Criminal Revision No. 543 of 1996 and while allowing the prayer of P.R. Maniktlala insofar as the petitioner-company was concerned, observed as follows: “In view of what has been held and observed and that the accused is a company, it is open to it to nominate its representative in terms of Section 305 Cr. P.C. for the purpose of the case, inasmuch as, since it had to and acted through its agents/officers in dealing with the transactions with the other company, NALCO, during which the alleged offence is said to have been committed, the prosecution is free and at liberty in any stage of the proceedings to produce materials, if any, that any other person who has not been arrayed as an accused or the present accused as against whom the prosecution has been quashed, also committed the alleged offence and if it satisfies the trial Court in that regard, the learned trial Court can take cognizance and proceed as against such persons and try them along with the remaining accused person. However, it need not be emphasized that it is for the learned trial Court to take a decision in the matter, in accordance with the law on the basis of materials placed before it in the event it is so done by the prosecution. However, it need not be emphasized that it is for the learned trial Court to take a decision in the matter, in accordance with the law on the basis of materials placed before it in the event it is so done by the prosecution. It is made clear that, the fact that the prosecution as against Sri P.R. Maniktala has been quashed by this Court would not stand on the way of the learned court below from exercising such discretion, if it is satisfied from materials placed before it at a subsequent stage that a case for taking cognizance and to proceed as against him is made out. In the result, both, the Criminal Misc. Case No. 503 of 1997 and Criminal Revision No. 543 of 1996 are allowed in part to the extent indicated.” 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid direction of this Court, a supplementary charge sheet came to be filed by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. against one J.K. Mediratta for committing offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and to treat the same as continuation of earlier charge sheet. The said J.K. Mediratta filed a petition for discharge which came to be rejected by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar vide order dated 21.11.2008 and the said order was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2009. Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2009 filed by J.K. Mediratta came to be dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 07.04.2009. It appears that no sooner Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2009 came to be rejected, the accused-company Doaba Industrial & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (DITCO) filed an application for discharge which came to be rejected by the learned C.J.M. (C.B.I), Bhubaneswar vide its order dated 26.08.2010. That order also came to be challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1209 of 2010. This Court allowed the said revision with the following observation: “I am of the considered view that even though a petition had earlier been filed by the petitioner-company seeking to challenge the order of cognizance, rejection of the said petition and affirmation of the order passed in the judgment reported in 2002 (Supl.), OLR 309 does not take away the right of the petitioner-company to seek discharge at the appropriate stage. If and when such an application for discharge is filed by the petitioner-company, responsibility is cast on the trial court to consider the same on merits. In the present case, there is no necessity for me to enter into the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties since, I am of the considered view that the matter ought to be remanded back to the court of learned C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar for re-consideration on merits and, therefore, while recording various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I refrain from expressing any opinion on the same, lest the same would prejudice either party in course of the said proceeding.” In view of the aforesaid observations, the matter was remanded for re-consideration and on re-consideration the order dated 23.11.2010 came to be passed, which is the subject matter of challenge herein. 4. In the impugned order, the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar has extensively dealt with the petition filed by the petitioner-company as well as the objection raised by the prosecution, perused the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of various witnesses as well as gone through the various case laws cited by the petitioner-company as well as the prosecution and concluded that in the present case it is admitted by the accused petitioner No. 1 that he was entrusted with the materials of NALCO as C & F agent and during investigation a huge amount of shortage of materials is noticed by the investigating agency. The statements of witnesses reveal that the materials cannot be taken outside unless there is connivance between security staff and the accused-company. The Court also formed an opinion that there is adequate prima facie material to presume that the accused-petitioner No. 1 has misappropriated huge amount of aluminium ingots since he did not make any attempt to report any theft or loss of such a huge amount of aluminium ingots though he had reported about theft of small quantity of materials in the past. Considering the aforesaid facts situation as well as the case laws discussed in the impugned judgment, the trial court came to conclude that on the materials available on record and the circumstances indicated in the impugned order, he found prima facie material against the accused-petitioner No. 1 (company) and consequently rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts situation as well as the case laws discussed in the impugned judgment, the trial court came to conclude that on the materials available on record and the circumstances indicated in the impugned order, he found prima facie material against the accused-petitioner No. 1 (company) and consequently rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the same and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, I find no error of law in the impugned order justifying any interference with the same and, consequently direct dismissal of the present revision. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.