JUDGMENT D. Das, J. - The petitioner by filing this revision has prayed for examination of the legality and propriety of an order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No 113 of 2009, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for his discharge in taking a view that a prima facie case under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC stands against the accused to frame charge. 2. The petitioner and three others have been arraigned as accused persons in the above noted case pending in the court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack for alleged commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC. The application filed by the petitioner to discharge him, having been rejected by the order dated 15.05.2018, the same has been impugned in this revision. 3. The prosecution case as has been narrated in the F.I.R. lodged by the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) on 04.07.2003 is that the Executive Engineer, Samal Barrage Division, Baghuapal, Talcher made an estimate of Rs. 3,05,34,200/- for the purpose of the work of Excavation of Right Bank Canal from the R.D. 21.790 kms. to 26.00 kms. including C.D. and V.R. Bridge durimg November, 1996 which was sanctioned by the then Chief Engineer and Basin Manager, Brahmani Basin Samal vide sanction order No. 24/1996-79. That was so estimated basing upon the schedule of rates of the year 1994 with enhanced labour rate of the year 1996. The tender schedule was approved for Rs. 2,99,10,812.00 by the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager, Samal. Tenders being invited, the then Superintendent of Engineer and Chief Engineer, finally, recommended that Sri J. Choudhury, Contractor be awarded with the work although, he was the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) and had made the financial bid at Rs. 3,51,47,641.71 which is 17.50% excess than the tender schedule. It received due approval from the Government by letter dated 18.01.1997. The agreement for the work was executed on 25.02.1997. In view of the allegation of corruption in connection with the execution of the said work, scrutiny was made. 3,51,47,641.71 which is 17.50% excess than the tender schedule. It received due approval from the Government by letter dated 18.01.1997. The agreement for the work was executed on 25.02.1997. In view of the allegation of corruption in connection with the execution of the said work, scrutiny was made. It is stated that finally award of work to the contractor who was the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) was made by ignoring the tenders of three others who were L-1, L-2 and L-3 which is not justified and thereby wrongful loss has been caused to the State to the tune of Rs. 1,05,63,094/- being so computed straightway taking the differential in the financial bid made by the L-1 and L-4. It is said that the Superintendent of Engineer having scrutinized the estimate and tender. documents had submitted to the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager with specific recommendation in favour of the fourth lowest bidder- L-4, discarding the bids of other three, i.e. L-1, L-2 and L-3 citing the grounds of unworkability and incapability. The Chief Engineer and Basin Manager being in agreement with that, recommended the case to the Government. That has been favourably resolved in the Tender Committee meeting where all the Members of the Tender Committee, agreed with the same and recommended for award of the work to M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) to the Government which has been given final seal of acceptance for onward action. It is alleged that the then Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and all the Members of the Tendering Committee numbering in total eight who are the then Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources, the Chairman; Additional Secretary, Law; Joint Secretary, Finance; Chief Engineer Upper Indrabati Project and Chief Engineers and Basin Manager Brahmani Basin, Financial Advisor-cum-Additional Secretary, Water Resources and Officers on Special Duty-cum-Deputy Secretary, Water Resources in connivance with the Contractor, M/s, Jagannath Choudhury entered into criminal conspiracy and obtained pecuniary advantage by abusing their positions as public servants and misusing their official jurisdiction in recommending the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) resorting illegal and corrupt means. In view of above, it is stated that a prima facie case surfaces against the Members of the Tender Committee as aforesaid, the Contractor, M/s. Jagannath Choudhury; and other Government Officials who had played the role in recommending the case of fourth lowest bidder (L-4) i.e. M/s. Jagannath Choudhury for acceptance and final award of the said work for being undertaken by the contractor The charge-sheet was submitted against Iswar Chandra Samal, Ex-Officer on Special duty, Babaji Mohapatra, F.A.-cum-Additional Secretary both of Water Resources Department, Khetra Mohan Pal, Ex-Joint Secretary, finance and Aswini Kumar Choudhury being the Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers & Contractors to stand their trial. This Aswini Kumar Choudhury who has been arraigned in the charge-sheet as an accused as the Power of Attorney Holder of the partnership firm, M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors is the revisionist-petitioner. Sanction having not been taken from the Government for launching the prosecution against the then Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department who was the Chairman of the Tender Committee, it has been said that the same would follow after obtaining necessary sanction. 4. The petitioner filed an application under section 239 Cr.P.C., 1973 for his discharge, first of all, stating that the Firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors having been duly awarded with the work and having entered into an-agreement after the approval of the Government on the basis of recommendations of the Authorities right from the field level onwards to the top and having done the work satisfactorily, there remains no justification for initiation of the case for alleged commission of offence at such belated stage, that too after successful completion of the work It is further stated that none of the ingredient for attraction of the offence of Section 120B of the IPC in so far as the petitioner who is said to be then representing the Firm, M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, holding its Power of Attorney stands in showing a prima facie case against him for the offence. It is also stated that this petitioner was never involved directly or indirectly right from the time of submission of the tender till award of the work, for and on behalf of the Firm-M/s. Jagannath Choudhury and no such material emanates either from the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 against the petitioner or from the records seized. Additionally, by filing another application in continuation to the first one, it is stated that during the relevant period of publication of the tender call notice and acceptance of the same, followed by the award of work in favour of M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, as also during the period of execution of the work, the petitioner was not in India and was prosecuting his Engineering studies in USA by staying there. In support of the same, he has filed the Passport, VISA and Degree Certificate from USA. So, it is said that the work having been awarded in favour of the partnership Firm-M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors when this petitioner was not there in the picture in any way, either directly or indirectly; more so, was not even a partner of the said Partnership Firm either active or sleeping nor the Power of Attorney Holder, for this work or any other work for and on behalf of Firm, he cannot be proceeded against. 5. Mr. B. Bag, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material on record to show that any agreement was reached between the petitioner and other officers named in the charge-sheet to cause wrongful loss to the State and thereby to make wrongful gain unto themselves or to do any other wrongful act; when also there remains no material with regard to any agreement or meeting of mind of all the accused persons. He, therefore submitted that even assuming for a moment that the petitioner was then representing the Firm, M/s. Jagannath Choudhury for work, there is n.o prima facie case to presume that he has committed the offence of conspiracy in that way in the matter of acceptance of the tender for the said work and award of the said work. His next limb of submission was that the court below has erred in law by not accepting the documents such as, the Passport, VISA and Degree Certificate from USA and other documents which are public documents placed by the petitioner in showing that he was having no connection with the Firm-M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors which according to him, have purposely been ignored by the Investigating Officer while submitting the charge-sheet and those being taken into consideration, completely chokes the case of the prosecution in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Fie, therefore, urged for quashment of the impugned order holding that there exists prima facie case against the petitioner to frame charge for above offence. 6. Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department while contending that the conspiracy part is well gather-able from the circumstances collected during investigation without any specific reference to the material on record pointing any such circumstance in the direction of conspiracy to have been prima facie committed by the petitioner with other accused persons, submitted that the very factum of acceptance of the tender of the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) in presence of L-1, L-2 and L-3 prima facie shows a case of conspiracy for award of the work to the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) so as to cause wrongful loss to the State and for wrongful gain of all concerned which is apparent on the face of collected records. He further submitted that the trial court has rightly at the stage of consideration of charge repelled the assertion of the petitioner as to his absence in the country and his case that he was then prosecuting his studies in USA based on the documents by saying that those would stand for consideration in proper perspective in the trial while considering the acceptance or rejection of the case of defence as so set forth by the petitioner. He also submitted that the view taken by the trial court that the documents filed by the petitioner at this stage is not entertain-able, has the legal backing. 7. The law is well settled on the score that at the stage of consideration for framing the charge, the Court is called upon to see whether a prima facie case pertaining to commission of offence has been made out or not by examining the evidence for that limited purpose and say as to whether materials placed, on their face value furnish reasonable basis forming the foundation of conclusion for commission of offence so as to place the accused for trial for those offences. 8. The settled position touching the factual settings of the case is that there can be no offence of conspiracy without meeting of mind or agreement by more than one person to accomplish some unlawful object set forth by those persons. 8. The settled position touching the factual settings of the case is that there can be no offence of conspiracy without meeting of mind or agreement by more than one person to accomplish some unlawful object set forth by those persons. Although in the original application for discharge, the petitioner had placed the case that even on merit, no prima facie case stands against him for alleged commission of offence under Section 120B of the IPC, so as to say that he entering into conspiracy with other Government officials, have got the fourth lowest tender (L-4) of M/s. J. Choudhury accepted so as to achieve the unlawful object of causing wrongful loss to the State in order to have wrongful gain for themselves, the trial court has not dealt that aspect. In view of that, on the basis of the materials on record as placed by the prosecution and accepting those as it is, the scope here is to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the materials placed by the investigating agency. 9. In case of Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat & another; 2012 AIR SCW 5567, the Apex Court has held as under:- "22. In Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641 , while dealing with the conspiracy the majority opinion laid down that the elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. It has been further opined that the essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. No overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. No overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. The two-Judge Bench proceeded to state that for an offence punishable under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. 23. In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, 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 it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused." In case of Gullam Din Buch Etc vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir; AIR 1996 SC 1568 , the position of law has been reiterated that ingredients of conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances drawn from the materials available on record. 10. 10. In the touchstone of the above legal position as to the commission of the offence of conspiracy as under Section 120B of the IPC, the factual matrix of the case need be examined within the scope and ambit of the proceeding available under law as afore-stated. Assuming for a moment that this petitioner was then representing the Firm, M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors for the work in question right from the publication of tender call notice till the completion of work, it is seen that no allegation stands against him with regard to his having an understanding or agreement with the officials as named to cause any wrongful loss to the Government or to derive any personal benefit or to share any such benefit arising out of the contract work. Whenever such allegation of conspiracy is made, it is for the prosecution to show the nature of the agreement and the unlawful object set forth for being achieved and then with regard to the achievement of the same, either in whole or in part remaining on the midway for being so detected, as the case may be; furthermore, indicating as to when, where and in what manner such agreement or understanding was arrived at. From the entire F.I.R., Case Diary and Charge-sheet, no such circumstance indicative / suggestive of any agreement or understanding by all the accused persons for achieving the unlawful object is seen. Nothing surfaces from the record to show that the petitioner had the knowledge about the fact that said Firm-M/s. Jagannath Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors was the fourth lowest bidder (L-4) and three forerunners were there having quoted lower price having the likelihood of being awarded with the work. It cannot also be lost sight of that here the prosecution has not come up with a case that the partnership Firm, M/s. J. Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors represented either by its partners or assuming to be so, through this petitioner in so far as the work in question, is concerned, got the pecuniary advantage of Rs. 1,05,63,094/- or any part. The allegation in a general manner stands that the Government has sustained loss of said amount which is the differential between the bids of L-1 and this Firm, M/s. J. Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors as L-4. 1,05,63,094/- or any part. The allegation in a general manner stands that the Government has sustained loss of said amount which is the differential between the bids of L-1 and this Firm, M/s. J. Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors as L-4. In a case, where the lowest tender is not accepted, and some one giving higher offer is accepted and given with the work order does the work which is also not said to be unsatisfactory or substandard; there can be no presumption or ready drawal of inference that there was conspiracy behind such acceptance so as to cause wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to all those associated in the process, especially in the backdrop of the accepted general rule that the authority always reserves the right to award the work by even rejecting the lowest tender while awarding the work to one such tenderer even quoting higher price assigning reasons unless the very reasons behind such rejection of lower tender are attacked as false or as mere lip service and eye-wash tainted with malafide so as to somehow manage in awarding the work to that higher tenderer which is not the allegation in the instant case. For all the aforesaid, there is no ground to presume that the present petitioner as the representing agent of the Partnership Firm i.e. M/s. J. Choudhury, Engineers and Contractors in conspiracy with the official accused persons who are the public servants has illegality got the work in question awarded in favour of the Firm and by doing so has obtained pecuniary benefit to his advantage or to the advantage of the said Firm. In view of what has been said above, the second limb of the submission as to acceptance and consideration of the documents placed by the petitioner at that stage of consideration of the charge for his discharge does no more survive for being addressed and as such is not felt so necessary to be addressed in so far as this case is concerned, being mere academic. 11. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, no charge can be framed against this petitioner in the case i.e. T.R. No. 113 of 2009 pending in the court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner be discharged. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner be discharged. The trial court shall now proceed for trial in accordance with law against the arraigned accused persons, other than this petitioner. 12. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.