ORDER : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 22(A)/09(R) including the order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, whereby and where under, the cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The allegations reveal that one Ram Nihora Prasad Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Giridih during the period 2005-06 entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and with M/s. PABSCON and in pursuance thereof on the basis of false and bogus invoices showing procurement of bitumen, the contract work was shown to have been executed causing loss to the State and wrongful gain to the contractor. It has been alleged that for the work exceeding Rs. 10 Lakhs, the construction materials including the bitumen is to be procured by the contractor from the Public Sector Undertakings, i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), etc. M/s. PABSCON was awarded contractual work vide agreement No. 3-F2/2005-06 for widening and strengthening of Govindpur-Tundi-Giridih Road at a contractual value of Rs. 3,39,28,6701against which after completion of job the contractor had submitted 68 Nos. of invoices showing procurement of bitumen out of which 35 invoices were issued by IOCL, Bokaro and all the invoices were found to be forged. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Depot Operator of HPCL, Jamshedpur had verified 46 numbers of invoices issued in the name of the contractor and the same were found to be genuine. One invoice No. 102842 was found to be forged and 03 numbers of invoices have been manipulated. 3. On 31.12.2010, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had submitted charge-sheet against Shashi Kant Gopalka, Ganesh Kumar, the then Assistant Engineers, Ashwini Kumar Mahto, Junior Engineer and the petitioner. 4. It has been stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as carrying and forwarding agent of HPCL during the period 2002-07 and the unloading, storing and delivery of packed bitumen was made to the companies customers from its Depot. 4. It has been stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as carrying and forwarding agent of HPCL during the period 2002-07 and the unloading, storing and delivery of packed bitumen was made to the companies customers from its Depot. It has been stated that the petitioner was merely an identifier and no complicity of the petitioner could be detected in course of investigation. It has further been stated that the Assistant Manager of IOCL was let off with a recommendation to initiate a departmental proceeding against him. Learned senior counsel submits that in the counter affidavit it has wrongly been stated that it was the petitioner who had verified the forged invoices as correct although the petitioner was never authorized to verify the invoices of HPCL, Jamshedpur. Learned senior counsel further submits that no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner for wrong verification. It has been stated that the CBI had never produced the original invoices which had never been verified. Learned senior counsel submits that no case under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC is made out and there is no evidence that the petitioner had gained pecuniary advantage for himself. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention has referred to the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685 and Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 . 5. Learned counsel appearing for the cm on the other hand has referred to the counter-affidavit and has stated that in course of investigation it was found that the petitioner has dishonestly and fraudulently certified 03 numbers of invoices wherein there were manipulations and one lube invoice out of 46 invoices of HPCL on. the basis of which the bills were passed and the amount was paid to the contractor. Learned counsel further submits that all the 46 invoices were sent by Road Construction Division, Giridih to HPCL, Jamshedpur for verification before passing of the bills and the petitioner had certified in the body of the bills that all the invoices were genuine pursuant to which payment was made, but 04 forged and bogus invoices were also included in the same. It has been stated that the petitioner was not authorized to verify the invoices of HPCL, Jamshedpur but he had wrongly verified the same and on account of such verification wrongful gain was provided to the contractor. Learned counsel further submits that charge in this case has already been framed and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the records it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is of verification of 46 numbers of invoices out of which one invoice was found to be forged and three numbers of invoices were found to have been manipulated. It appears that the petitioner was not authorized as per the prosecuting agency to verify the invoices but on a careful perusal of the forwarding letter with respect to the 46 invoices it appears that it was the petitioner who had signed on the same and had clearly written that he had verified all the invoices. Investigation had revealed that as per the entries made in the measurement book 691.2561 M.T. (approx) bitumen was shown utilized in the road work where as the contractor had submitted 43 genuine invoices covering only 599.3 MT of bitumen. It was detected that 95.7168 MT less bitumen was utilized in the works in question, the values of which was ascertained to be Rs. 22,34,881.55. The role of the petitioner in the offence has clearly been defined as he had verified the bogus invoices to be genuine pursuant to which the 12th final bill was passed and paid to the contractor. If the petitioner was authorized to verify the invoices in question there was no occasion for him to have certified it in the forwarding letter and if the petitioner was not authorized the same also points to the involvement of the petitioner in certifying the false bills. 7. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 while considering a case in which lawyer was being sought to be prosecuted who have submitted a false legal opinion, it was held as follows : "28. 7. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 while considering a case in which lawyer was being sought to be prosecuted who have submitted a false legal opinion, it was held as follows : "28. In the light of the above discussion and after analyzing all the materials, we are satisfied that there is no prima facie case for proceeding in respect of the charges alleged insofar as respondent herein is concerned. We agree with the conclusion of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings and reject the stand taken by the CBI." However, the fact situation of the present case is otherwise as has been denoted above and therefore the chain of circumstances which indicate that illegal benefit had accrued to the contractor on account of submission of forged bills and therefore, the said pronouncement is not helpful to the cause of the petitioner. 8. In either way the culpability of the petitioner is apparent from the face of the record and in such circumstances, therefore the learned Court below had rightly taken cognizance vide order dated 7.1.2011. Thus, there being a strong prima facie case against the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.