JUDGMENT : Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the CBI. 2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 19(A)/2008-R under Section 120, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 including the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the court below by which the prayer of petitioner to discharge him under Section 239 and 245 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. The short fact of the case is that the C.B.I. got information about the award of a tender for repair and painting of building of Shyamali Township and by changing the terms of the tender by the officers of MECON Ltd. for the purpose of showing undue favour to the contractors namely M/s. J.P.Rai and M/s. P.K.Mishra who were awarded the work during the year 2007. The further allegation is that CMD, MECON Ltd. had given administrative and financial approval for the repair of damaged buildings of MECON Township by inviting an open tender but limited tenders were called from the contractors who had little/no experience. By making the correction/change, the word from ‘open’ to ‘limited’ tender the officials with dishonest intention had approved the Tender Committee’s recommendation without taking any approval from the competent authority for making changes in the method of tender from ‘open’ to ‘limited’. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that earlier this petitioner had approached this Court vide Cr.M.P. No. 1728 of 2017 in which the order impugned rejecting the prayer for discharge by the court below was set aside by terms of order dated 16.01.2018 with specific direction that “the learned trial court if at all was convinced that the petitioner had a role in the angle of conspiracy as alleged by the CBI, there should have been some material discussion by the learned trial court to substantiate its refusal to discharge the petitioner from criminal prosecution”. He further submitted that the court below through impugned order dated 26.03.2018 after considering all the materials again rejected the discharge application filed on behalf of petitioner but the direction of this Court was not complied with. He further submitted that the court below through impugned order dated 26.03.2018 after considering all the materials again rejected the discharge application filed on behalf of petitioner but the direction of this Court was not complied with. He further submitted that the court below has not analyzed the role of petitioner with the angle of conspiracy and how much he gained financial advantage out of the said conspiracy. He relied on a decision in the case of A. Sivaprakash Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2016) 12 SCC 273 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In this case, although there was a direction of this Court to examine the materials collected against the petitioner but the court below has not given any consideration that the petitioner being a public servant took advantage by applying corrupt and illegal means or by misusing his official position. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI submitted that after the remand by this Court, the court below has discussed the materials collected against this petitioner as well as he has also analyzed the position from the angle of conspiracy and found the involvement of this petitioner who, by misusing his official position, persuaded the accused contractor to file tender. He further submitted that the court below is not required to meticulously examine all voluminous material which may be in the nature of a mini trial. Now it has been held that at the stage of charge the court has only to see as to whether the material on record reasonably connects the accused with the crime or not. He relied on a decision of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 320 (SC). He also submitted that in case of Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 the Ho’ble Apex Court has held that:- “45. He relied on a decision of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 320 (SC). He also submitted that in case of Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 the Ho’ble Apex Court has held that:- “45. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself”. Therefore, meeting of mind between the two or more persons for causing an illegal act through an illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the court below has rightly come to the finding that there are sufficient material available on record and thereby rejected the petition for discharge. 6. Considering the above submission of parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that this Court while passing order in Cr.M.P. No. 1728 of 2017 remanding the case of this petitioner, had held that the impugned order dated 21.06.2017 (earlier order passed by the Court below) merely reveals about the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the result of the investigation. The trial court has not gone any further save and except what has been noted in the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner seems limited only to what has been stated above and not further. The trial court has not gone any further save and except what has been noted in the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner seems limited only to what has been stated above and not further. Learned trial court if at all was convinced that the petitioner had a role in the angle of conspiracy as alleged by the CBI, there should have been some material discussion by the learned trial court to substantiate its refusal to discharge the petitioner from criminal prosecution. 7. The order impugned dated 26.03.2018 the trial court has discussed the materials collected against the petitioner and has also discussed the role of this petitioner in finalizing the tender process. It further appears from the impugned order that he has also discussed the conspiracy part and the involvement of this petitioner while working in the capacity of Executive Director (Commercial and Power), MECON Limited to enter into criminal conspiracy with others and misused his official position in persuading the contractor to file the tender. The court below after taking into consideration all these materials and circumstances came to the conclusion that there are sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused petitioner and resultantly rejected the discharge application filed on behalf of petitioner. From the decision cited on behalf of petitioner as well as on behalf of CBI it appears that at the time of consideration of the discharge application or an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous materials and the court is only required to see the materials on record which reasonably connects an accused with the alleged crime. Therefore, in this situation, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.03.2018, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.