JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 02.06.2014, by which charges were framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988"). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for one and same incidence, five FIRs have been registered though not permissible. In four FIRs, accused are different and petitioner has been implicated in the 5th FIR. He is not involved for offence under the Act of 1988. The petitioner's implication is based on two witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that too, with the delay of 15 days. It shows nothing but false implication of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel further stated that no allegation exists for giving or acceptance of gratification or its demand with recovery of currency notes. The petitioner is, thus entitled to be discharged. Separate cases were registered only for the reason that institutions involved therein are different but it is in ignorance of the fact that incidence is one and same, though representatives of five colleges are different. In view of the above, only one case could have been registered by the CBI. A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 46 has been given where second FIR was quashed in regard to same incidence. It was after considering earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 . Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the impugned order with discharge of petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI submits that five different cases have been registered in regard to five different incidences by different educational institutions. It is a case where different colleges were given recognition without confirming to the parameters and by commissioning of offence under the Act of 1988. The institutions are involving different set of persons, thus separate cases were registered and otherwise permissible. It is not a case that against one and same person and for same incidence, two FIRs have been registered. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that for one and same incidence, different FIRs have been registered, is not correct. The institutions are involving different set of persons, thus separate cases were registered and otherwise permissible. It is not a case that against one and same person and for same incidence, two FIRs have been registered. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that for one and same incidence, different FIRs have been registered, is not correct. In four other cases, charge sheets have already been filed and trial has already commenced. The petitioner has been implicated in 5th case in regard to his own educational institution, thus ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is not made out on facts. It is further stated that specific allegations exist against the petitioner and others for commission of offence under the Act of 1988. It was considered by the court below for framing charges. The case was inquired on information regarding act of the officials of the NCTE for grant of recognition to the certain institutions in an illegal manner. It was without confirming standard for recognition. When case was inquired, five institutions were found involved in pursuing officers of the NCTE for securing its recognition in an illegal manner. The court below has discussed the issue at length by referring to the facts while framing charges. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 5. The challenge to the order, framing charges, is mainly on the ground that five FIRs were registered for one and same incidence. Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI has explained the aforesaid by referring to involvement of different educational institutions and their representatives. Separate cases were registered as different educational institutions are involved for securing recognition of the institution by the NCTE. It is not a case where for one and same incidence, two FIRs have been registered, rather five incidences have been taken separately after considering role of each institution and the offences involved therein, thus case is not made out to show that for one and same incidence and involvement of same accused, five different FIRs have been lodged separately. The judgment in the case of Babubhai (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. Therein, for one and same incidence, separate FIRs were registered containing different version. The Apex Court found that after registration of first FIR, second was not permissible for the same incidence. The judgment in the case of Babubhai (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. Therein, for one and same incidence, separate FIRs were registered containing different version. The Apex Court found that after registration of first FIR, second was not permissible for the same incidence. The facts of this case are different and distinguishable than judgment in the case of Babubhai (supra). Hence, first argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. The other issue is regarding prima facie case for offence under the Act of 1988. I have considered the aforesaid aspect also and perused the impugned order. It is a case where on information, inquiry was conducted regarding recognition of the institution by the NCTE without confirming to the standards. The petitioner-institution was one of them. In view of the above and looking to the stage where only prima facie case is to be seen, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Any comment on merit may affect either of the parties in trial but looking to the detailed order and finding no error for framing charges, I am unable to pursue myself to interfere in the order.The petition is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******