JUDGMENT : 1. The above named petitioners are accused in the C.C. No. 9 of 2014. While revision petition is filed challenging the order made in Crl.M.P.No 896 of 2015 in C.C. No. 9 of 2014 on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The other petitions are to quash the charge framed against them. 2. The petitioners herein are public servants functioning under various capacity in the Stationary and Printing Department, Government of Tamil Nadu which is responsible for supplying stationary materials to the Government Departments. For the purpose of supplying stationary materials, every year, Forecast Committee will be formed in the office of Directorate of Stationary and Printing Department, which will forecast the requirement of printing the materials for the following financial year. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the forecast committee, the Special purchase committee consisting of Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Director of Stationary and Printing and under Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Finance Department, will call for tender and purchase the required stationary items. 3. The allegation against the petitioners herein is that during the year 2006, the petitioners who are the members of the forecast committee, with mala fide intention, conspired together and procured 66 MT of manifold papers, which was not at all required for the ensuing year. They have increased the quantity of manifold paper purchase from 6.5 MT to 66 MT which was not at all required, thereby abused the power as public servant and caused loss to the Government by purchasing 66 MT of manifold papers without intend from any of the department. 4. The petitioners herein have contended that the role of the forecast committee is to get intend from respective department regarding Stationary and Printing materials required for them for the ensuring year and after considering the requirement of each department, the quantity and quality of the stationary will be fixed and forwarded to special purchase committee, who actually finalize the exact requirement and call for tender. There is no allegation that there was an irregularity or illegality in the tender process. Likewise, there is no allegation that the procured manifold papers, based on the recommendation of the forecast committee, was unutilized. There is no allegation that there was an irregularity or illegality in the tender process. Likewise, there is no allegation that the procured manifold papers, based on the recommendation of the forecast committee, was unutilized. In view of supplying typewriters to judicial department and other departments, the anticipated requirement was forecast by the committee at 66 MT and duly purchased in accordance with the tender Transparency Act. Therefore in the absence any mens rea or loss to the Government no offence is made out under section 120-B or 409 I.P.C. Hence the prosecution launched against them should be quashed. 5. The respondent/state has filed the counter wherein it is stated that the role of the forecasting committee is to assess the requirement of Stationary for the ensuring financial year. While assessing the future requirement, it should take note of the stock in hand and the intend placed by the respective department and thereafter should arrive at Judicious conclusion regarding the requirement. In the present case, the procurement of manifold paper for the previous financial year ended by March 2005 was only 6.5 MT. The respective departments have made intend only for 6.5 MT for the ensuing year. However, the forecast committee met during the month of April 2016 after inflating the intend sought by the respective departments have arrived the future requirement at 40 MT. Thereafter on the their own without any rime or reason had fixed the estimated requirement of manifold paper for the financial year 2006-07 as 66 MT. In fact the utilization of manifold papers which is mostly used for taking carbon copies while typing has slowly reduced and redundant due to computerisation. Therefore instead of reducing the procurement of manifold paper, the petitioners conspiracy to procure 10 times more then the requirement with mala fide intention. Thereby violated the direction of law and breached the trust reposed on them. Thus they have caused monetary loss to the Government. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Additional Public prosecutor that the mens rea to procure manifold paper over and above the requirement could be well seen from the fact that, the manifold papers which is used for taking multiple copies while typing with Carbon Sheets. Therefore, the requirement of manifold papers go along with requirement of carbon sheets. Therefore, the requirement of manifold papers go along with requirement of carbon sheets. When the forecast committee has inflated the requirement of manifold papers from 6.5 MT to 40 MT and again enhanced to 66 MT, there is no proportionate increase in procurement of carbon sheets. This will clearly indicate the criminal intention of the forecast committee in which the petitioners were members. The investigation disclose that the petitioners herein as members of the forecast committee had abused their official position and for getting pecuniary advantage for themselves had placed order of supply for about 66 MT of manifold papers which was not at all required for the Government. Since, they have procured excessive paper, the same was forced to the used for subsequent years till 2009 and only after exhausting the entire stock, fresh orders was placed for manifold paper for the required in the year 2009-10. 7. This Court after giving anxious consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner counsel as well as the learned special public prosecutor could find that one Mr. Sugumaran S/o Arumugam, Deputy Manager, [Retired] working Stationary and Printing department had been complaining to the Government authorities regarding mistake and malfunctioning in the Directorate Stationary and Printing department. Since there was no action by the authorities, he has approached this Court in Crl.OP.No.28629 of 2010 seeking Judicial intervention for conducting enquiry on his complain and registered the case, if cognizable offence is made out. Pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2011 passed by this Court in above said petition, the respondent has registered the complaint. The respondent has registered the complaint conducted preliminary enquiry and found that out of 14 allegations made in the complaint, 12 allegations were fit for department to take disciplinary action and other two allegations were taken up for detail enquiry. Thereafter the said Sugumaran again approached this Court by way of Crl.OP. No.14273 of 2012 for necessary action based on the preliminary report. Accordingly, the case has been registered in Crime No. 4/AC/12 dated 01.08.2012 for offences under Section 120 B, 409 I.P.C and under section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After completion of the investigation, final report has been filed against these petitioners. 8. The petitioners herein do not dispute that they were member of the forecast committee, except the 5th accused, Raghuraman the Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1694 of 2017. After completion of the investigation, final report has been filed against these petitioners. 8. The petitioners herein do not dispute that they were member of the forecast committee, except the 5th accused, Raghuraman the Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1694 of 2017. He would submit that on the day when the committee decided to procure 66 MT he did not participate and he is not party to be recommendation. However the record reveals that he was the party in the deliberation for recommending procurement of 40 MT and he has not objected for enhancing the procurement of 66 MT of manifold paper. The statement shown in the requirement of paper items by the respective departments does not indicate the estimated requirement of manifold paper for the year 2006-07 will come anyway near 66 MT. While the statement indicates that 6.5 MT equal to 500 reasons alone was in need. It is also an admitted fact by the petitioners what they have procured for the financial year 2006-07 was exhausted only in the year 2009. This clearly indicates excessive procurement of manifold paper at the behest of the petitioners. When the duty is casted upon the forecast committee to forecast the estimated requirement for the ensuing financial year based on the intend made by the departments, excessive procurement 10 times more then the intend clearly indicates a design to favour someone. From the materials placed by the prosecution, as members of forecast committee these petitioners have not discharge their duty but abused the power vested on them to make pecuniary advantage for themselves or other persons. Therefore this Court finds no justification in the above said petitions. Certain facts pleaded by the petitioner against the defacto complaint and the manner the estimation was arrived to procure 66 MT of manifold papers are matter for trial and High Court cannot interfere the trial under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.