ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by learned A.J.C.-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in R.C. No.11(A) of 2009(R) whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioner for discharging him from the case, was rejected. 3. The facts leading to filing of this case are that on the direction given by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.803 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was made on the matter relating to large scale irregularities and embezzlement of crores of rupees by the Engineers of the Road Construction Department as well as contractors and other persons in the matter of procurement of Bitumen for construction of road wherein it was found that the then Executive Engineers, Road Division, Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh, Shyam Sunder Singh, Birendra Kumar and Sone Lal during the period 2002-07 entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. Whereupon on submission of false/bogus invoices by M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. showing procurement of bitumen from Government Company for the execution of work awarded to him, payments were made. 4. It was further found that the contractors were required to procure Bitumen from the Public Sector Undertakings like Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum corporation Limited etc. and before using Bitumen, contractors were required to submit invoices for procurement of Bitumen, a certificate regarding quality of Bitumen procured, but the contractors without procuring Bitumen from the Government Company submitted false invoices, pertaining to procurement of Bitumen and thereby, took payment of Rs.17,69,517/- on the basis of false certification by the engineers. On such allegations, a case was required as R.C. No.11(A) of 2009-R on 16.9.2009. 5. In course of investigation, it was found that M/s. Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. to whom the work had been awarded had gone in connivance with one Gokul Agarwal, the Director of M/s Bharat Vanigya Eastern Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata, as well as this petitioner-the partner of M/s. Siddhartha Construction, who had formed a cartel whereby the Directors of M/s. Vanigya Eastern Pvt. Ltd. and this petitioner being the partner of M/s Siddhartha Construction, facilitated M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. in getting tenders in his favour in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched amongst themselves. 6. 6. After investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and other accused persons. 7. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging the petitioner from accusation. That prayer was rejected, vide order dated 24.07.2014, which is under challenge. 8. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petitioner, who happened to be the partner of M/s Siddhartha Construction, has been made an accused in this case along with other accused persons, simply on the accusation that the petitioner had formed a cartel with other Company, namely, M/s Classic Coal Construction Private Limited to whom the contract was awarded and this has been alleged for the reason that NSC, for depositing the security money, had been purchased on behalf of the company of the petitioner and other companies including M/s Classic Coal Construction Private Limited on the same day and from the same post office and that after the work was awarded to M/s Classic Coal Construction Private Limited, security money, which was deposited by way of NSC, was taken back by one Anuj Kumar, the partner of M/s Siddhartha Construction and was deposited as security money for M/s Classic Coal Construction Private Limited, but on account of the said acts, it can never be said that the petitioner and other persons had formed a cartel, as the word 'Cartel' appearing in Section 2(c) of the Competition Act, 2002, has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court differently and thereby the acts of the petitioner and others cannot be taken to be acts of cartel. 9. 9. Further submission, which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner, is that even if it is accepted that this petitioner along with one Gokul Agarwal, the Director of M/s Bharat Vanigya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata, had connived with M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd., it had connived for the purpose of getting award in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. and not for the purpose of committing offence, as has been alleged whereby it is said that the M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. by submitting fake/forge invoices, drew the money and misappropriated and if no such act would be there on the part of the petitioner, towards the connivance of submitting forged/fake bills and then withdrawing the money illegally, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under which the petitioner is being prosecuted. 10. Learned counsel in this regard has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad versus K. Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Case 512. 11. Further submission is that this Court, after taking into account the acts done by Gokul Agarwal, who had also been alleged to have formed cartel and facilitated M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. in getting the award in his favour like that of the petitioner, did find that the petitioner (Gokul Agarwal), cannot be said to have had formed a cartel and as such, his case was quashed, after taking into account the fact that the petitioner namely, Gokul Agarwal had never committed any act of conspiracy towards submitting the fake invoices and then withdrawing the money. Similar is the case of this petitioner and, thereby, order impugned is fit to be quashed. 12. As against this, Mr. Similar is the case of this petitioner and, thereby, order impugned is fit to be quashed. 12. As against this, Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submits that the petitioner is one of the partners of M/s Siddhartha Construction, who, in connivance with other person, namely, Gokul Agarwal, the Director of M/s Bharat Vanigya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata, facilitated M/s Classic Coal Constriction Pvt. Ltd. to have award in his favour and they were in conspiracy with each other and the act of conspiracy is that one of the partners of M/s Siddhartha Construction and also the representative of others company, namely, M/s Bharat Vanigya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata, and M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. had purchased NSC on the same day from the same post office, not only that when the petitioner did succeed in getting the award in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd., one of the partners, namely, Anuj Kumar received back the NSC, which had been deposited by way of security and then again deposited as security for M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd and all these facts, go to prove amply that they were in connivance with M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Limited. 13. Accepting the allegation that the petitioner, by the acts done, facilitated M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. in getting the award in his favour, as has been mentioned above, he could simply be said to be instrumental in getting the award in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. but there does not appear to be any act so as to petitioner can be said to have conspired with M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. in the matter of submitting fake/forged invoices for the purpose of drawing the money illegally. In such event, the petitioner can never be said to have committed offence under which the petitioner is being prosecuted. 14. In this respect, I may refer to a decision rendered in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad (supra), wherein Their Lordship in paragraph-24 has been pleased to hold:- “24. 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 of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. 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 of an illegal act or 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 conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence”. 15. Similar was the case of M/s Gokul Agarwal, the Director of M/s Bharat Vanigya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata. This Court, having taken into account the aforesaid facts also appearing against him, did find that the court committed illegality in rejecting the application for discharge. Accordingly, the court, in the facts and circumstances stated above, committed wrong, in rejecting the application for discharge. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 24.07.2014 is, hereby, set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the case. 17. In the result, this application is allowed.