JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Basant Narayan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- C.B.I. 3. This criminal revision petition was initially filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 23.01.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2013-D, registered under Section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468,471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby and whereunder, an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of this case. This case is now said to be pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad. 4. Further, vide order dated 07.02.2019, I.A. (Cr.) No. 5039 of 2017 was allowed by this Court wherein a further prayer was made by the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the court below whereby the learned court below has been pleased to frame the charge against the petitioner under Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other accused persons and fixed the case on 14.06.2017 for evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him, has been wrongly rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 23.01.2017. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the partnership of the petitioner i.e. M/s Red Cross Distributors raised several invoices dishonestly and fraudulently claiming an amount of Rs. 36,02,552/- approx. mentioning the name of medicines, quantity of medicines, name of manufacturer of medicines, batch number, manufacturing and expiry date, MRP etc. towards purported supply of medicines. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is neither a partner of the said firm nor has any nexus with the alleged supply of medicines etc. He submits that no criminal case is made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the petitioner. 7. towards purported supply of medicines. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is neither a partner of the said firm nor has any nexus with the alleged supply of medicines etc. He submits that no criminal case is made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the petitioner. 7. This Court finds that the allegation against the petitioner has been dealt with in internal page number 33 of the charge-sheet. It has been alleged as follows: “That Shri Atendra Kumar Singh (A-3) has been a Partner of aforesaid firm M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas during the period 2008-2009. He has filed IT return, audit report as Partner of M/s Red Cross Distributors, Chas and also signed on related partnership deed alongwith co-accused Shri Satyendra Singh (A-2). Bank Current A/c. No. 12909 (converted to new A/c. No. 480020100012909) was opened and maintained at Bank of India, B.S. City, Bokaro in the name & style of Partnership Concern M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas during the relevant period of 2008-2009. This Bank Account of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas was solely operated by Shri Atendra Kumar Singh (A-3). Purported and fraudulent supply of medicines against 4 supply orders of BSL were made by M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas and the related challan, executed supply order and bills towards cost of supply of medicine worth Rs. 36,02,552/- mentioning the batch number and name of manufacturer of medicines, prepared or/and signed by Shri Satyendra Singh (A-2), Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (A-4) and Shri Satyendra Kumar (A-5) on behalf of partnership concern M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas. An amount of Rs. 29,51,531/- (out of fraudulent payment of Rs. 36,02,552/-) were found to be withdrawn by Shri Atendra Kumar Singh (A-3) as account holder Partner of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas through the Bank Account maintained in the name of firm at Bank of India, Bokaro during the year 2008-09. An amount of Rs. 29,51,531/- (out of fraudulent payment of Rs. 36,02,552/-) were found to be withdrawn by Shri Atendra Kumar Singh (A-3) as account holder Partner of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas through the Bank Account maintained in the name of firm at Bank of India, Bokaro during the year 2008-09. Shri Atendra Kumar Singh (A-3) with the help of co-accused persons Shri Satyendra Singh (A-1), Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (A-4) & Shri Satyendra Kumar (A-5), had dishonestly & fraudulently made purported supply & obtained receipt of medicines as well as got processed & passed the fraudulent bill of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas for payment towards cost of medicines supplied by them whereas in actual most of those medicines or/and batch of medicines were either not manufactured by the corresponding medicine manufacturing company or/and sold and marketed by them to different parts of India other than Jharkhand or/and medicine manufactured by unapproved company were supplied by M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas and on the basis of false certificate given by A-1 Shri Y. N. Prasad, A-6 Shri Rabindra Prasad & others, payments were obtained in favour of his said supplier firm. He with help of other partner Shri Satyendra Singh (A-2) got prepared false challan, executed supply order & bill with the help of co-accused Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (A-4) & Shri Satyendra Kumar (A-5). He was found to be beneficiary of proceeds of fraudulent bills of at least Rs. 28,39,940/- towards cost of supply of medicines from BSL in the name of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas.” 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in the charge-sheet at internal page number 33 the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence has been elaborately dealt with and considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and found during investigation as recorded in the charge-sheet, this Court is not inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 9. This Court is of the view that there is sufficient material collected against the petitioner during investigation and more than prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has rightly refused to discharge the petitioner. 10. 9. This Court is of the view that there is sufficient material collected against the petitioner during investigation and more than prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has rightly refused to discharge the petitioner. 10. The status report from the learned court below has been received and from the perusal of the report, it appears that the trial has already commenced and as on 24.06.2019, six charge-sheeted witnesses have already been examined. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 14. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever before the learned court below. 15. Office is directed to return the case-diary to the court concerned. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX”.