JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Anti Corruption Bureau. 3. This petition has been filed against the order dated 17.09.2018 passed in Khunti P.S. Case No. 115/2010, registered for the offence under Sections 161, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 corresponding to Vigilance (Special) Case No. 62(A)/2010 by the learned court of Shri Santosh Kumar-II, Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi whereby the petition for discharge, upon remand by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 553 of 2016, has been mechanically and casually rejected and charge has been directed to be framed against the petitioner under Section 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 although no material has transpired during investigation as against the involvement of the petitioner, which is now pending before the learned Court of Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order the learned court below has refused to discharge the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time and out of amount of Rs. One crore which was received by the petitioner for execution of work, an amount of Rs. 30 lacs was released in favour of the Assistant Engineer who in turn released the amount in favour of the Junior Engineer who was supposed to execute the work. The learned counsel submits that as soon as the petitioner was informed that the work was not to be executed, he remitted the remaining 70 lacs to the authority and so far as 30 lacs Rs. Is concerned, he has himself lodged an F.I.R. against the Junior Engineer in the police station for criminal misappropriation of the amount. Learned counsel has also submitted that certificate proceeding has already been initiated by the State only against the Junior Engineer for realization of the amount which itself indicates that there is no criminal misappropriation of fund at the hands of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that certificate proceeding has already been initiated by the State only against the Junior Engineer for realization of the amount which itself indicates that there is no criminal misappropriation of fund at the hands of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that it was the petitioner who was the whistle blower and having lodged the F.I.R. he has been made a victim and an accused in the present case. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand submits that the petitioner was conducting the role of supervising the work and work of only about 6 lacs was shown to have been done on the spot, but in the measurement book it has been recorded that the work amounting to a total of Rs. 29 lacs and odd was done. The learned counsel submits that the measurement book contains the signature of the petitioner and since the petitioner was supposed to supervise the work also, such entry made in the measurement book which was a total mismatch with the actual physical measurement done on the spot indicates that the acts and omissions of the petitioner has caused substantial loss to the State. Accordingly, the learned court below has rightly rejected the petition for discharge. Learned counsel for the opposite party also submits that merely because the petitioner claims to be the whistle blower, the same does not mean that the petitioner cannot be roped in a case where the ingredients of offence are found and simply by lodging F.I.R. he cannot escape from the responsibility. Learned counsel submits that more than prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and accordingly the learned court below has rightly refused to discharge the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner may raise his defence before the learned court below at appropriate stage but this is not a proper stage for consideration of the defence and explanation of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner may raise his defence before the learned court below at appropriate stage but this is not a proper stage for consideration of the defence and explanation of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that although the petitioner had lodged certain F.I.R. and certificate proceeding for realization of the amount was instituted only against the Junior Engineer, but at this stage, as per the allegation made against the petitioner, the petitioner was supposed to supervise the work and there are certain signature of the petitioner in the measurement book. There appears to be a mismatch with respect to value of the actual execution of the work and the value of the work which is mentioned in the measurement book. Considering this aspect of the matter and the fact that the petitioner was supposed to supervise the work, this court finds that more than prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned court below was justified in refusing to discharge the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage. This court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity calling for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to raise all the points which may be available to the petitioner under law at the stage of trial and dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 7. Pending I.A. if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.