Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1181 (GAU)

DOLI LOYI v. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2015-09-11

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
ORDER : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ninnong Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Special P.P., Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), for respondent No. 2. 2. The case, in brief, is that because of some huge irregularities committed in the Power Department, Government of A.P. during the year 1993-98 in the tenure of the then Chief Engineer, Shri Darshan Singh, a complaint was made to the CBI in the year 2001 by the Under Secretary (Deptt. of Power) for investigation into the matter. Accordingly a case under section 120B, IPC read with section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 was registered against Sh. Darshan Singh and others. The CBI conducted investigation into 8 allegations, namely, allegations 1(A), 1(B), 2(A), 2(B), 3(A), 3(B), 4(A) and 4(B). The present petitioner is made an accused only in respect of allegation 1(A) wherein it was alleged that Shri Darshan Singh in conspiracy with M/s. M.R. Power Projects showed undue favour to the firm in matter of award of contract relating to supply of 30 Portable Micro Hydel sets imported from Czechoslovakia. It was alleged that the work was awarded to the firm without observing any formality and the contract was executed even when the quotation of the party was not the lowest. Shri Darshan Singh the then CE, Power had called for NIQ dated 18.8.1993 for supply of 30 sets of 20 KW hydro generating sets. In response to the said NIQ, a total of nine parties responded. Four offers were for supply of indigenous sets and five offers were for supply of imported sets. The quotations were opened by Shri Darshan Singh and a comparative chart was prepared by him indicating the rates offered by the nine parties. As per the comparative chart prepared by Shri Darshan Singh, the rates of M/s. M.R. Power Projects was shown to be the lowest for imported hydel sets. Thereafter, Shri Dashran Singh submitted a proposal dated 15.6.1994 before the State Works Advisory Board (WAB) for approval for procurement of either indigenous sets or light weight imported hydel sets. The said proposal was placed before the WAB for the first time on 22.7.1994 wherein the members where the Chief Secretary as Chairman, the Commissioner (P), the Commissioner (Finance) and the Chief Engineer, Power. The said proposal was placed before the WAB for the first time on 22.7.1994 wherein the members where the Chief Secretary as Chairman, the Commissioner (P), the Commissioner (Finance) and the Chief Engineer, Power. The petitioner was the Special Sectary (Finance) at that time and was asked by the Commissioner (Finance) to accompany him in the said WAB meeting. In the said meeting the Commissioner (Finance) asked certain clarifications regarding the opening of the quotations to which the Chief Engineer (Power) informed that the CPWD Manual is followed by the department and as such he insisted on production of CPWD Manual. The proposal, in question, was once again placed before the WAB on 25.7.1994 and on that day since the Commissioner (Finance) was out of station, the petitioner was asked to represent him in the said WAB meeting. In that WAB meeting, the procurement of some ACSR Conductors and Transformers were approved, however, the matter of procurement of imported hydel sets were asked to be rechecked with other firms and companies by the CE(P) on the direction of the Chief Secretary. Subsequently, again an undated WAB meeting was held wherein the petitioner was not present. By the said undated WAB minutes the work for supply of imported light weight hydel projects was finally approved by the WAB which was signed by the then Chief Secretary as Chairman, the Commissioner (Power) and the Chief Engineer (Power) but not signed by the petitioner. Thereafter WAB recommendations were submitted by the Commissioner (Power) on 14.09.1994 for approval of the Minister of Power and the same was approved by the Minister of Power on 11.10.1994. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Power) vide his Letter No. SPWD/W-517/92 dated 27.10.1994 issued Government approval to the CE (Power) to place the order with M/s. M.R. Power Projects. In the charge sheet, it has been alleged that the WAB members has ignored the fact that neither administrative approval, expenditure sanction nor finance concurrence were obtained before considering and approving the proposal. They neither ensured that the bids of all the parties which had responded to the tender should have been seen by them nor they also did not ascertain whether the evaluation of the tender bids was correct and in conformity with the NIQ. They neither ensured that the bids of all the parties which had responded to the tender should have been seen by them nor they also did not ascertain whether the evaluation of the tender bids was correct and in conformity with the NIQ. In view of the above, it has, therefore, been alleged that the petitioner being one of the WAB members, has committed offence punishable under section 120B, IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 for showing undue favour to M/s. M.R. Power Projects in the matter of award of contract for supply of Micro Hydel Sets. 3. Strongly defending the case of the petitioner, Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has contended that in the charge sheet itself, it has been mentioned that "No Administrative Approval ('AA')/Expenditure Sanction ('ES') or Financial Concurrence ('FC') was obtained by Sh. Darshan Singh before issuing the NIQ". In fact, these requirements were needed to be fulfilled before calling of the NIQ. The WAB was only to consider the question of either for procurement of imported hydel sets or indigenous sets. Since the NIQ was already floated and the comparative chart of bids was prepared by the CE(P) himself, there was no question for WAB to see whether the AA/ES, etc., was obtained or not, as it is automatically presumed that these requirements are already fulfilled before issuing the NIQ. No NIQ could be issued without obtaining AA/ES, etc. 4. It has also been submitted that the WAB dated 25.7.1994 did not sit to scrutinise the bid documents of the tenderers as because the same was already been evaluated by the Sri Darshan Singh CE(P) himself and had prepared a comparative chart of the bidders and already identified the lowest bidders. The WAB was just to consider whether to procure imported light weight hydel sets or indigenous Indian make sets. This can be ascertained from the WAB minutes itself. The decision by the WAB was made bona fide as because despite being costlier, the imported sets are of superior quality, lighter in weight, and easy for air-lifting to far-flung and inaccessible areas. The WAB dated 25.7.1994 was of the firm view that the imported sets were better than the indigenous sets, however, no final decision was taken in this regard as the Chairman of the WAB had directed the CE(P) to recheck with other firms and companies. The WAB dated 25.7.1994 was of the firm view that the imported sets were better than the indigenous sets, however, no final decision was taken in this regard as the Chairman of the WAB had directed the CE(P) to recheck with other firms and companies. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the WAB is also not the final approving authority as because all the WAB decisions are to be approved finally by the Minister concerned. This can be ascertained from the charge sheet itself. Furthermore, there is no material on records or even a whisper in the charge sheet that could remotely indicate that the petitioner had agreed to the WAB decision dated 25.7.1994 by abusing his official position and by corrupt or illegal means has obtained for himself or any other person any pecuniary advantage. There is also nothing on records to even remotely indicate that there was a criminal conspiracy between the petitioner with any other person. Therefore, proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of court. 5. It has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, there is no any material on record/charge sheet for proceeding against the petitioner. Even if assuming that the prosecution story in the charge sheet to be a gospel truth at this stage, then also there is no case made out for proceeding against the petitioner. Mr. Ratan, has relied on the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 102 has laid down some guidelines/illustrations where the High Courts can set aside and quash the FIR or criminal proceedings while exercising its extraordinary powers under article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. One of the said illustrations is - "(3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. In the instant case, even if the FIR or charge sheet is not controverted by petitioner, no case is made out against the petitioner. 6. In the instant case, even if the FIR or charge sheet is not controverted by petitioner, no case is made out against the petitioner. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the learned Special Judge should have followed the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC'), however, in the instant case the learned Special Judge has proceeded as if it is trial before the Court of Sessions and has framed charges against the accused persons under section 228, Cr.PC, which was not required at all. The further contention of the petitioner is that be as it may, whichever provision may be applicable, either section 227 or section 239, at this stage, the court is required to see that if there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused - State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Insp. of Police v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 . Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court while dealing with section 227 is equally applicable for dealing with section 239, i.e., to see whether prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the accused - State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 563. 7. To buttress his case, the petitioner has contended that for proceeding against the accused, the learned trial court cannot act merely as a post office or the mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. These provisions, i.e., sections 227 and 239 was introduce in the Code to avoid wastage of public time when a prima facie case was not disclosed and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure - (i) CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 , (ii) P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 , and (iii) Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 . 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that at this stage, this court will consider whether there exists the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charged against the accused/petitioner. The charged offences are under section 120B, IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. For better appreciation of the matter, section 13 of the PC Act reads as follows : "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. -(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,.... (d) if he, - (i) by corrupt or illegal; means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." 9. It has also been the contention of the petitioner that he has not used corrupt or illegal means nor has abused his position as a public servant, to obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The petitioner has, therefore, committed no criminal misconduct. Rather, it can be seen that the entire charge sheet, there is not even a whisper to the extent that the accused petitioner has obtained anything for himself. The allegation is that M/s. M.R. Power Projects has gained some pecuniary advantage because of the WAB decision wherein the petitioner was a member. The petitioner has, therefore, committed no criminal misconduct. Rather, it can be seen that the entire charge sheet, there is not even a whisper to the extent that the accused petitioner has obtained anything for himself. The allegation is that M/s. M.R. Power Projects has gained some pecuniary advantage because of the WAB decision wherein the petitioner was a member. However, there is nothing to show in the charge-sheet that the petitioner has used corrupt or illegal means or has abused his position as a public servant in making the WAB decision dated 25.7.1994. Further, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had conspired with M/s. M.R. Power Projects and had received anything from it for making the said WAB decision. Therefore, in absence of any material to show that the petitioner has obtained anything from M/s. M.R. Power Project for making the WAB decision dated 25.7.1994, the petitioner cannot be held liable for criminal misconduct. In that context, a public officer making any bona fide decision in public interest cannot be held liable for criminal misconduct just because such a decision might have caused pecuniary advantage to any person. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that this court will have to consider as to whether the offence under sections 120A/120B, IPC is being made out against the petitioner. For better appreciation of the matter, sections 120A and 120B, IPC are reflected below : "120 A. Definition of criminal conspiracy: When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done - (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy : Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object." "120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. - The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act of for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. - The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act of for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence, have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused-persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence." - CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 . 11. Further contention of the petitioner is that in the instant case, the petitioner is not named in the FIR but he has been made an accused just because he happened to be a member in one of the WAB meetings. It has been reiterated by the petitioner that he was not even present when the final WAB decision was taken. The charge sheet speaks volumes about others, however, there is no specific reference to the role of the present petitioner along with the main conspirators. There is nothing in the charge sheet showing any circumstances, before and after the WAB meeting, that there was any conspiracy between the petitioner and any other person. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also responded to the charge that though the respondent counsel has referred to section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the said section 10 is only regarding relevancy of facts for proving existence of conspiracy. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also responded to the charge that though the respondent counsel has referred to section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the said section 10 is only regarding relevancy of facts for proving existence of conspiracy. In the instant case, it is the relevant fact that the petitioner was a member of the WAB meeting dated 25.7.1994 which is not disputed, but the question to be determined is whether this relevant fact so stated in the charge sheet alone, is sufficient or discloses a prima facie case, against him. The moot question is that, whether being a member in one of the WAB meeting is sufficient enough to proceed against the accused petitioner without there being any other direct or circumstantial evidence against him. It is reiterated that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which clearly states, as under : "101. Burden of proof - Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Illustrations (a) A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime." In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed the crime. In the instant case, the prosecution has only proved the fact that the petitioner was one of the WAB members (which is not disputed by the petitioner), but the prosecution has not shown any circumstances before and after the WAB meeting to prove that the petitioner has conspired with any person. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution has only proved the fact that the petitioner was one of the WAB members (which is not disputed by the petitioner), but the prosecution has not shown any circumstances before and after the WAB meeting to prove that the petitioner has conspired with any person. 14. Considering the matter in its entirety, the learned counsel for the petitioner has firmly pleaded that in the absence of any incriminating material in the charge sheet against the petitioner, no case is made-out for proceeding against him and the criminal petition may, therefore, be allowed. 15. The respondent CBI has filed a detailed affidavit-in-opposition, in this matter, wherein, they have categorically stated that the respondent CBI, New Delhi, filed a charge sheet on 24.10.2008 against 9 accused persons, viz., Sri Darshan Singh, Sri T. Ringu, Shri Ashok Nath, Sri Tomi Ete, Sri Rajender Kumar Jain, Sri Pradeep Jain, Sri Gurmukh Singh, Sri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, and Sri Doli Loyi (present petitioner) for the offences publishable under section 120B, IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of PC Act, 1988, wherein it has been stated that the accused Darshan Singh while working as Chief Engineer (Power) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh during 1993-96 entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s. M.R. Power Project showed undue favour to the firm in the matter of award of contract relating to supply of 30 portable Micro Hydel projects Czechoslovakia. It has been alleged by the respondent that the work was awarded to the firm without observing any formality and the contract was executed even when quotation of M/s. M.R. Power Project was not the lowest. 16. It has also been alleged in the charge sheet, in question, that accused/applicant was one of the members of the meetings of Work Advisory Board (WAB) dated 25.7.1994. A meeting of WAB held on 22.7.1994 for considering the proposal dated 15.6.1994 for considering the proposal dated 15.6.1994 wherein the Commissioner (Finance) asked for certain clarifications regarding opening of the quotations from CE (Power). The Chef Engineer (Power) also informed that the Department of Power is following the CPWD Manual and procedures for calling quotations and tenders and such the cases submitted to WAB, are beyond the financial powers of the CE (Power). The Chef Engineer (Power) also informed that the Department of Power is following the CPWD Manual and procedures for calling quotations and tenders and such the cases submitted to WAB, are beyond the financial powers of the CE (Power). It is further alleged in the charge sheet that WAB in its meeting held on 25.7.1994 in which accused/applicant participated as Commissioner (Finance) although he was the Special Secretary (Finance) and approved the procurement of imported turbine with instruction that this should be installed within a stipulated period. The Court of Special Judge (PC Act)-Cum-district and Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia (AP) has passed the order dated 8.8.2011 where by a charge has been framed against accused/applicant for the offences punishable under section 120B read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. 17. The respondent CBI, at the very outset, has raised objection upon the maintainability of the case, which, according to them, is not maintainable in the eye of as well as circumstances of law and facts, and, hence, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at this stage. According to them, the framing of charges by the trial court is principally based upon prima-facie allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet. It is not required by the trial court to go in details of the evidence, at this stage. The criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner, against the established statutory provisions of law, i.e., section 19, sub-section (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which reads, as under : "No court shall stay the proceedings under this Act any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial appeal or other proceedings." 18. The further contention of the respondent-CBI is that the petitioner would be given ample opportunity for his defence during the course of trial, hence, the grounds advanced by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, are not maintainable, at this stage, and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. In support of his case, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Spl. 19. In support of his case, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Spl. P.P., CBI, has relied upon the case, as mentioned below: (i) Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 2856 (ii) G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 57 (iii) Sushi Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, NEJ (2011) 3 706 (iv) Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591 (v) Homi Rajhans v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2014) 12 SCC 556 20. The further contention of the respondent-CBI is that it is not an appropriate stage to examine the witness as the same is subject-matter of trial and there is ample evidence against the accused-petitioner on record to establish the allegation against him, and, therefore, it would be justified to decide the contention of petitioner after proper trial before the competent Court. Moreover, the WAB ignored the fact that neither administrative approval nor expenditure sanction and or financial concurrence had been given to the proposal being considered by them and the WAB members neither ensured that bids of all parties which had responded to the said tender, have been seen by them, nor they ascertained as to whether the evaluation of the said tender was correct and in conformity with the NIQ. It has been submitted that the learned Spl. judge, CBI, had rightly and judiciously framed the charges against the petitioner after going through the evidence/material on record and after being satisfied that there is a clear-cut prima facie case against the petitioner. The further contention of the respondent-CBI was that the WAB members were aware that tenders had been floated only for the purchase of 30 Nos. of 20KW Hydel sets and no tenders were called for the purchase of 50KW or 30KW. Accordingly, neither any discretion nor authority was available to the WAB to finally approve the purchase of 30KW and 50KW sets in violation of the whole tendering process. It is, thus, evident that all the Members of the WAB which included the CE(P) recommended a proposal which resulted in an expenditure involving purchase of 30 Nos. of Generator Sets to the tune of Rs. 7.7 crores (Approx.) despite the fact that there was no proposal or even a plan of action for deployment of these generator sets at various sites in the State. No material was available before the WAB to justify the Nos. of Generator Sets to the tune of Rs. 7.7 crores (Approx.) despite the fact that there was no proposal or even a plan of action for deployment of these generator sets at various sites in the State. No material was available before the WAB to justify the Nos. of Generator sets required or the capacity of the generator sets required to carter to the load requirements. Each of the Members of the WAB was, therefore, responsible both in their individual capacity as well as collectively for allowing the Government funds to be disbursed in such an illegal manner. 21. It is the further contention of the respondent-CBI that there is sufficient evidence on record that the petitioner had the full knowledge about the tender but he failed to ensure whether the evaluation of the tender bid was correct and in conformity with the NIQ. It is also submitted that being Special Secretary (Finance), he had full knowledge that tender has been floated only for the purchase of 30 numbers of 20 KW Hydel sets and instead of that, he had approved the purchase of 30KW and 50KW sets in violation of the whole tendering process. 22. In view of the above, it has been contended that the petitioner cannot be discharged from his liabilities, only because of the fact that he was not present in that WAB meeting in which the tender was finally approved. It is clearly established during investigation that he in connivance with other co-accused facilitated the wrongful award of tender which caused undue pecuniary advantage to M/s. M.R. Power Project. It has been further submitted that, in all cases, the decisions of WAB are to be approved by the Minister concerned, where as per the minutes of the WAB meeting held on 23.7.1994, the Board had approved the proposal for procurement of Light Weight Small Hydro sets for providing power supply to the interior villages under Rural Electrification Corpn. (REC) scheme. There is no dispute that the petitioner, being the member of WAB signed upon the minutes of the Board meeting. In this context, the investigation revealed that WAB ignored the fact that neither the administrative approval nor the expenditure approval/sanction and financial concurrence had been given to the proposal by the Minister. (REC) scheme. There is no dispute that the petitioner, being the member of WAB signed upon the minutes of the Board meeting. In this context, the investigation revealed that WAB ignored the fact that neither the administrative approval nor the expenditure approval/sanction and financial concurrence had been given to the proposal by the Minister. Investigation also established that the WAB members failed to ensure that the bids of all other parties, which had responded to the tender, would be considered by them before taking any final decision of the award of Contract. The WAB also did not ascertain as to whether the evaluation of the tender bids was correct and in conformity with the NIT. Therefore, there is a clear-cut prima facie case to establish the involvement of the petitioner, as he being a member of the WAB, did not discharge his duties properly due to which an undue advantage was given to a private firm which caused a huge loss to the State Government Exchequer. There is sufficient material on record to establish the involvement of accused-applicant to commit the offence punishable under section 120B read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. 23. According to the respondent CBI, the meeting dated 25.7.1994, was never called for a limited purpose, i.e., to decide whether the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, should procure imported light-weight Hydel sets or indigenous Hydel sets and that the WAB was not for scrutinising or evaluating the bid documents of awarding work to any firm. The further contention of the respondent-CBI is that Chief Secretary as the Chairman signed the minutes later on. Thus, it cannot be said two meetings dated 25.7.1994 and 8.8.1994 were separate and distinct. In fact, the later meeting dated 8.8.1994 was extension of 1st meeting dated 25.7.1994. It is also the contention of the respondent CBI that due to the decision taken by WAB on 25.7.1994, he did not derive any financial gain for himself or for any other person, the correct position is that due to this approval an ineligible company M/s. M.R. Power was awarded the contract despite the fact that M/s. M.R. Power Projects was not in the lowest bidder. Thus, due to collective decision dated 25.7.1994 of WAB, undue pecuniary advantage was given to M/s. M.R. Power Projects. Situated, thus, the learned Spl. Thus, due to collective decision dated 25.7.1994 of WAB, undue pecuniary advantage was given to M/s. M.R. Power Projects. Situated, thus, the learned Spl. Judge, CBI had rightly and judiciously framed the charges against the petitioner after going through the evidence/material on record and after being satisfied that there is a clear-cut prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, the accused-applicant deserve to be tried by learned Special Judge, Yupia, for the charges framed against him. 24. I have considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the rival contentions which is nothing more than the pleadings which has already been filed by them. Unlike other cases, the present case has also challenged the charge on the ground that the fact that there is no material on record to show the complicity of the accused applicant to show that he acted for mala fide intention while sitting in the Work Advisory Board (WAB) and to confer a decision regarding the proposal so made by the Chief Engineer. Similarly, other challenges are there regarding framing of charge, absence of conspiracy, in the above aspect. Admittedly, the petitioner attended the meetings of the WAB, twice, and in the final meeting, there was an assertion that he has consented to the proposal so made by the Chief Engineer accused Darshan Singh, the impact of which goes to show that due to approval of WAB the contract was awarded illegally to the firm who was not at all the lowest bidder to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The function of WAB is not to approve the proposal of the Chief Engineer, mechanically, where such financial concurrence of works above Rs. 50 lakhs was to be considered. The WAB was empowered to accept the tender value. So the WAB was under the obligation to look into the proposal so made as to whether the estimate was prepared according to the NIQ and the said WAB also ignored the fact that neither Administrative Approval and Expenditure Sanction or financial concurrence has been given to the proposal considered by them. All these suggestive of complicity of the accused petitioner with the offence alleged. All these suggestive of complicity of the accused petitioner with the offence alleged. The fact that the accused petitioner was not the signatory of the last meeting of the WAB, held nor he gave any consent to the WAB meeting that cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the averment of the note of the meeting that he has consented for the approval of the WAB proceeding. The matter of course can be challenged in course of trial. The serious obligation of the WAB cannot be flouted with, in the manner as has been depicted in the matter in hand. As a consequence of approval of WAB, Rs. 200 crores was released by the Government. 25. On the point of conspiracy, the Apex Court in Suman Sood v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 5 SCC 634 , while dealing with such aspect, has categorically held that while there is no direct evidence to prove the factum of conspiracy, it is well settled that an inference of conspiracy can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances inasmuch as normally no direct evidence of conspiracy is available. Generally, conspiracy is hatched in a secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The privacy and secrecy are more characteristic of the conspiracy than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. 26. Law relating to invoking of power conferred under section. 482 of the Cr.PC, upon the High Court, is well settled. In landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters wherein the High Court can exercise the powers conferred upon it, under section 482 of the Cr.PC, which is reproduced below : (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR), or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under order of the Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under order of the Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute a non-cognizabte offence and no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order from a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can reach such a conclusion is just conclusion that there is sufficient material for proceeding. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceeding at or where there is specific provision, the Code or Act providing efficacious redress or the grievances for the aggrieved party. (7) Where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceeding is maliciously restituted with an ulterior motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 27. In another case, reported in Umesh Kumar (supra), has also dealt with the scope of section 482 of the Cr.PC, in the following words : "The scope of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is well defined and the inherent power could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court and to otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, in exercise of such power, it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of prima facie satisfaction of existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Any document filed along with the petition levelled as evidence, without being tested and proved, cannot be examined." 28. However, in exercise of such power, it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of prima facie satisfaction of existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Any document filed along with the petition levelled as evidence, without being tested and proved, cannot be examined." 28. Coming to the present case, at hand, it is found that Under Secretary, Power, Sri K. Riram, lodged a detailed First Information Report (FIR) showing all the illegalities committed by the accused Shri Darshan Singh, Chief Engineer, Power Department, in conspiracy with the other accused persons including the petitioner thereby causing huge pecuniary loss to the State Government, which discloses a cognisable offence, against tile accused persons and as such, by invoking of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.PC, the charges against the accused persons, cannot be at all set aside. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the case of HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida and Anr., decided on 19.3.2015, in Criminal Appeal 472/2015, it has been held that the High Court while exercising power under section 482 of the Cr.PC should not express its view on disputed matters. 29. Turning to the point of framing of charge, law is well-settled that at the time of framing of charge, the trial court shall not enter into a roving enquiry, all that it requires to be seen is to whether a prima facie case is made-out or not; and if any prima facie case is made out, the trial court will be well within its ambit of power to frame charge against the accused persons, as bas been beld in Bharat Parikh v. CBI and Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 109 . In another case reported in Homi Rajhans (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no need to traverse all the factual details at the time of framing charge and the court is not to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to upheld in the trial. In another case reported in Homi Rajhans (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no need to traverse all the factual details at the time of framing charge and the court is not to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to upheld in the trial. In the present case, the learned Special Judge has given due consideration to all the materials produced before the court and it cannot be expected to write each and every factual aspects in detail in such cases which is based on large numbers of documents and he has recorded in prima facie satisfaction upon scrutiny of all the documents and thereby holding that there is prima facie case to frame the charge against the accused persons. 30. In this context, another case law can be cited reported in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2007 (2) KLJ 644 , it has been held that unlike section 227 of the Cr.PC, section 228 does not oblige the court to give reasons while framing charge. Obviously, the insistence on the duty to give reasons while discharging the accused under section 227 of the Cr.PC, because of premature termination of the proceedings by the court. But if the court instead of discharging the accused under section 227 of Cr.PC, proceed under 228 of the Cr.PC, subsequent stage of framing charge, the court is not prematurely closing the proceedings. That explains while no reasons need be given while framing charge. Where the materials placed before the court displays grave suspicion and not some suspicion against the accused and which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceed with the trial. 31. That explains while no reasons need be given while framing charge. Where the materials placed before the court displays grave suspicion and not some suspicion against the accused and which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceed with the trial. 31. In the given case, it is to be noted that the learned Special Judge has fully evaluated the materials produced by the prosecution and after considering the broad probabilities of the case and various documents and the evidence of large numbers of witnesses, was satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioners and, hence, refused the discharge the accused petitioners as prayed for under section 227 and has decided to frame charges and accordingly directed the accused-petitioners to appear before the court to answer the charge but they did not turn up before the court and has moved the present petition which cannot be entertained as has been discussed above. There is no irregularity in-charge so framed by the learned court below and there is no justifiable ground to set aside the order dated 8.8.2011. There is much substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the CBI who has diligently placed before the court all the materials along with the referring to the appropriate legal provisions on the subject. 32. In view of all above discussions and findings, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the court and within one month from today to face the trial and the learned court below will make endeavour to dispose the case with utmost priority preferably within 6 months because of old pendency of the matter if necessary by taking day-to-day hearing. 33. Send a copy of this order to the learned trial court accordingly.