JUDGMENT : 1. Instant writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in connection with Special Case No.35 of 2003 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 of 1995 pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chaibasa under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. 2. The prosecution case has been initiated on the basis of written report lodged by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on 06.01.1995 wherein it has been stated that during the course of enquiry Zila Parishad and Panchayati Raj Samiti of Bihar Legislative Assembly found that during the period 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 insecticide Alderin 30 E.C. was purchased from the fake firm i.e. M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar for Rs.26,48,093.14. Thereafter, a decision was taken at the level of Government to take necessary action and a report of the committee was presented before the Bihar Legislative Assembly and a copy of which was also sent to the Vigilance Bureau for lodging of the F.I.R. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Bureau from which it was found that M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar is a fake firm and the proprietors Mohan Lal Murarka and his son Arun Kumar Murarka had received illegal money on the basis of false/fake purchase of Aldrine 5% dust and Aldrine 30 EC. It was alleged that as per the conspiracy hatched by the Public Servant with the proprietors of M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar, M/s Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Gaya and Gramin Vikash Kendra, Chaibasa, a fake purchase of insecticide were shown through the firms which were not in existence. It was further alleged that both the firm i.e. M/s Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Gaya and Gramin Vikash Kendra, Chaibasa had supplied insecticides from the year 1989 to 1990 and had received Rs.2,65,000/- and Rs.21,77,568.46 respectively. It was further alleged that both the firm i.e. M/s Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Gaya and Gramin Vikash Kendra, Chaibasa had supplied insecticides from the year 1989 to 1990 and had received Rs.2,65,000/- and Rs.21,77,568.46 respectively. It was also alleged that without inviting any tender and without any enquiry Ram Pratap Singh, the then D.F.O., Chaibasa, North Division vide his memo no.1427 dated 25.06.1986 has issued purchase order to M/s Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Gaya and Gramin Vikash Kendra, Chaibasa for supply of 275 bags of Aldrine 5% dust (50 Kg per bags) @ Rs.299.80 paise per bag to supply in five forest range and to submit the bills in two copies after taking receipt from the Range Officer of the forest. It was alleged that the supply of above mentioned insecticides were fake and the proprietors of the firms had submitted their bills for the payments and thereafter the payments of Rs.84,198/-was made. 3. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, the F.I.R. was lodged at Vigilance Police Station. After investigation, the Vigilance Bureau submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide charge sheet no.68 of 2011 dated 10.10.2011 which was received by the Special Judge, Vigilance on 14.10.2011. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that merely on the basis of the preliminary examination, charge sheet has been submitted. He further submitted that materials collected at the time of preliminary examination cannot be treated as police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so this criminal proceeding is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that preliminary examination is done only to form an opinion whether to lodge any F.I.R. or not, but after lodgment of F.I.R., preliminary examination has no value so it cannot be treated as evidence collected under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the F.I.R. there was no allegation that he had got any illegal gratification for issuance of supply order for supply of insecticides i.e. Aldrine 5% dust within the forest ranges of Chaibasa North Forest Division. In the F.I.R. there was no allegation that he had got any illegal gratification for issuance of supply order for supply of insecticides i.e. Aldrine 5% dust within the forest ranges of Chaibasa North Forest Division. It is further submitted that there is nothing in the case diary to show that the documents which were seized by the Vigilance Bureau during the course of preliminary enquiry were found forged or fake. 5. Criminal prosecution of co-accused Mahendra Kardam vide Cr.M.P. No.2331 of 2014 (Annexure-3) and Arvind Kumar vide Cr.M.P. No.2455 of 2014 (Annexure-4) both were allowed on 04.09.2015 by this Court. Lastly, he submitted that petitioner was not a member of purchase committee but he has issued only supply order, therefore, he is not at all involved in committing the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. 6. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that petitioner had issued purchase order to Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa for supply of 275 bags of Aldrine 5% dust (per bag 50 Kg.) at the rate of Rs.299.80 per bag for supply in five forest ranges. The firm raised bills which was approved for payment by this petitioner and had released the amount relating to all 7 bills raised by the firm. He also submitted that Aldrine 5% dust and Aldrine 30 E.C. were never purchased from any manufacturer between 1980 to 1992, therefore, the petitioner along with other co-accused have conspired with each other causing loss to the State exchequer. Lastly, he submitted that the charge against this petitioner has already been framed on 20.11.2014 and the case is pending for evidence before the court below. 7. Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of the lower court records, case diary and the papers attached with this writ application as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of A.C.B., it appears that a committee of Bihar Legislative Assembly during the period 1988-89, 1990-91 found that insecticides were purchased from fake firm M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar for Rs.26,48,093.14 paise and thereafter vigilance bureau lodged First Information Report. During course of enquiry, it was found that this type of scam was also committed in other 11 Forest Divisions and huge payments were made showing fake purchase through non-existent firm. During course of enquiry, it was found that this type of scam was also committed in other 11 Forest Divisions and huge payments were made showing fake purchase through non-existent firm. It further appears that without inviting any tender, the petitioner, who was posted at the relevant time as District Forest Officer, Chaibasa, North Division, issued purchase order for supply of 275 bags which was to be supplied in five forest areas. After investigation, vigilance bureau submitted charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. The court below has taken cognizance of the offence after applying judicial mind and moreover after hearing, charge was framed against this petitioner in the back drop that the firms never purchased these items from the manufacturers during the relevant period. The matters of co-accused are not similar to this petitioner, therefore, the points raised herein could be raised during the trial so that the trial court may arrive at a definite finding with regard to the allegations upon this petitioner. During trial, the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case. On that very basis, the trial court could form definite opinion and the case would attain a logical conclusion. 8. In these circumstances, instant writ application is dismissed. 9. Office is directed to return the Lower Court Record to the court concerned immediately. The court below is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.