JUDGMENT : Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The criminal revision has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 31.03.2014 passed in R.C.07(A) 2012-AHD-R by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi whereby and where under, the learned special Judge, CBI, Ranchi has discharged the opposite party nos.2-4 from the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Dilip Kumar Prasad was Chairman of Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the opposite party no.3 and 4 are the members of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission at the relevant time. It is alleged that the opposite party nos.2-4 have committed irregularities in appointment of officials at Rajkiya Pharmacy Sansthan, Bariatu, Ranchi for which advertisement No.09/06 was first published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission but after two months, the same was cancelled but Jharkhand Public Service Commission published second advertisement No.9/07 for appointment to the same eight posts in Rajkiya Pharmacy Sansthan, Bariatu, Ranchi and after scrutinizing educational qualification, experience certificate and after conducting interviews of the candidates, name of the some of the candidates were recommended as successful candidates for appointment. It is specifically alleged that the allegation against the opposite party no.3 Dr. Shanti Devi is that she was in-charge of scrutinizing of all the applications received after first advertisement. In connection with the second advertisement no.9/07, she was again entrusted with the work of verification of application forms. It is further alleged that the case was first registered by Anti-Corruption of Bureau (Erstwhile Vigilance Bureau) upon the order of enquiry from Cabinet Vigilance. The said Vigilance Bureau instituted Special Case No.14 of 2011 corresponding to Vigilance Case No.12/11 against the opposite party nos.2-4 and one Radha Govind Nagesh and others and after due investigation, the Vigilance Bureau submitted charge sheet against the opposite party nos.2-4 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 424, 468, 469, 471-A, 120-B, 109, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter in compliance of the order passed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.06.2012 in W.P.(PIL) No.3594 of 2011, the investigation of the case was taken over by the Central Bureau Investigation for further investigation and the case was re-registered as R.C. 07(A)/2012-AHD-R and after due investigation, the Central Bureau Investigation submitted closure report against all the accused persons including the co-accused Radha Govind Nagesh. After submission of the closure report, the learned Special Judge, CBI issued a notice to the complainant-Binay Kumar Mahto who is the petitioner in this case before this court and upon whose allegation, the Cabinet Vigilance initially ordered for enquiry and the petitioner appeared before learned Special Judge, CBI and filed Protest Petition. The Learned Special Judge, CBI did not accept the closure report submitted by the CBI as cognizance of the case had already been taken by the Spl. Judge Vigilance after submission of charge sheet by the Vigilance Bureau and vide order dated 13.08.2013, it was ordered that at the time of framing of charge any final order regarding closure report and protest petition filed by the complainant would be passed. In the impugned order, learned Special Judge, CBI has mentioned that the allegation against the opposite party nos.2-4 is that they in their capacity as the Chairman and members of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission did not properly scrutinize the application forms as result of which three candidates, who were not having required experience, were also selected. The recommendation for appointment of selected candidates in connection with Advertisement No.09/06 was sent to the concerned department and after noticing shortcomings and bringing the same within the knowledge of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission the recruitment was cancelled but later on advertisement No.9/07 was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for fresh recruitment and it is alleged that the irregularities were committed in recruitment of some of the candidates in respect of the said advertisement no.9/07 as well. It is next alleged that the candidate Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary had enclosed caste certificate and residential certificate which were issued in the year 1997 while as per advertisement; it should have been issued in or after 2001. It is next alleged that the candidate Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary had enclosed caste certificate and residential certificate which were issued in the year 1997 while as per advertisement; it should have been issued in or after 2001. It is also alleged that the application forms of two candidates were received in the Jharkhand Public Service Commission office one day after the last date of the receipt and despite that these applications were considered. 4. The Learned Special Judge, CBI has further observed that after going through the material in the record, it appeared to the learned Special Judge, CBI that Vigilance Bureau has done the investigation of the case in haste and though according to Vigilance Bureau, there was no occasion for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to cancel the result published with respect to advertisement no.9/06 and the Vigilance Bureau opined that without any valid reason this appointment was cancelled and fresh advertisement was made and fresh appointment was done but the Vigilance Bureau could not collect material to show that there was a criminal conspiracy behind the said irregularities. It is also observed by the learned Special Judge, CBI that the Investigating Officer who investigated the case on behalf of the CBI has also pointed out that some irregularities have been done in the appointment process but it has also been mentioned that upon verification of the genuineness of the caste and residential certificates submitted by the candidate namely- Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary, issued in the year 1997 was found to be genuine. It was found that the receipt register of the application forms submitted by the candidates in response to the advertisement number 09/07 was found missing from the office of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission but the postal seal on the postal stamp affixed on the application submitted by two candidates bears date 29.08.2007 whereas the last date of the submission of the application forms was 28.08.2007. The CBI submitted the closure report upon mentioning in the closure report that there were some irregularities in the appointment process but the CBI could not collect any material evidence to attract criminality on the part of the opposite party nos.2-4 to implicate them in this case. The CBI submitted the closure report upon mentioning in the closure report that there were some irregularities in the appointment process but the CBI could not collect any material evidence to attract criminality on the part of the opposite party nos.2-4 to implicate them in this case. Learned Special Judge, CBI also observed that the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Bureau could not substantiate any conspiracy on the part of the opposite party nos.2-4 in the selection of the candidates recommended for appointment in the State Pharmacy Institute nor Vigilance Bureau could gather any material to suggest that any of the selected candidates was near and dear or close relative of the opposite party nos.2-4 or that the opposite party nos.2-4 were benefited by the appointment of selection of candidates in any manner. Hence, opposite party nos.2-4 were hereby discharged from this case by the learned Special Judge, CBI. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that five persons whose names were recommended in the earlier advertisement no.9/06 were also recommended for appointment in respect of advertisement no.9/07 as well and favour was extended to them for their selection by committing irregularities in their appointment. It is further submitted that learned court below has failed to appreciate that there was full proof case to show that the opposite party nos.2-4 were constantly trying to appoint the persons who were not eligible otherwise and even succeeded in doing so. It is then submitted by Mr Tiwari that the learned Special Judge, CBI failed to appreciate that advertisement of the year 2006 for the same posts were not fulfilled because of the anomalies in the documents submitted by the same candidate but then again the same documents were relied upon by the opposite party nos.2-4 in the next recruitment process in connection with the next advertisement no.9/07 shows their involvement in the said offence. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI is indefensible and illegal hence the same be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration as per law by the Learned Special Judge, CBI. 6. Mr. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI is indefensible and illegal hence the same be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration as per law by the Learned Special Judge, CBI. 6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for CBI defended the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI and submitted that the allegation against the opposite party nos.2-4 is that of committing some irregularities in the appointment process for recommending the appointment of candidates in respect of the posts in advertisement no.9/07 but such irregularities do not establish the culpability of the opposite party nos.2-4 which is a sine qua non for submitting charge sheet against them and as no cogent material could be gathered by the CBI in spite of its best effort in this regard and the CBI could not find any material to substantiate the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. during the investigation, therefore instead of submitting a charge sheet, requested the Competent Authority to take departmental action against the erring persons for the negligence and failure to implement the instructions and submitted a closure report. It is then submitted by Mr Prashant Pallav that as there is absolutely no material in the record to frame the charges for any of the offences for which charge-sheet was submitted by the Vigilance Bureau, the learned Special Judge, CBI, has rightly discharged the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, and thus there being no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Special Judge, CBI, this revision petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar the learned senior counsel and Mr Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively defended the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI and submitted that in the absence of any material in the record to establish the ingredients of any of the offences for which charge-sheet has been submitted in this case by the Vigilance Bureau, the learned Special Judge, CBI has rightly discharged the opposite party number 2 to 4. Mr Srijit Choudhary relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy and Ors. Mr Srijit Choudhary relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy and Ors. v. Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board and Another reported in 2013 (10) SCC 465 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph nos.8 and 9 as under: 8. The administration of criminal justice in India can be divided into two broad stages at which the machinery operates. The first is the investigation of an alleged offence leading to prosecution and the second is the actual prosecution of the offender in a court of law. The jurisprudence that has evolved over the decades has assigned the primary role and responsibility at both stages to the State though we must hasten to add that in certain exceptional situations there is a recognition of a limited right in a victim or his family members to take part in the process, particularly, at the stage of the trial. The law, however, frowns upon and prohibits any abdication by the State of its role in the matter at each of the stages and, in fact, does not recognise the right of a third party/stranger to participate or even to come to the aid of the State at any of the stages. Private funding of the investigative process has been disapproved by this Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya [ (2000) 8 SCC 323 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1510] and the following observations amply sum up the position: (SCC p. 329, para 18) “18. Financial crunch of any State treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting the expenses needed for such investigations is the lookout of the executive. Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur.” 9. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur.” 9. Coming to the second stage of the system of administration of criminal justice in India, this Court in Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1966 SC 911 : 1966 Cri LJ 700], while examining the right of a third party to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under the 1898 Code, had observed as under: (AIR p. 912) “… The criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book.” and submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI. It is further submitted that Learned Special Judge, CBI has elaborately discussed the matter before him and rightly found that there is no material in the record to frame the charge against the opposite party nos.2-4 and rightly discharge the opposite party nos.2-4. Hence it is jointly submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that this petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is needless to mention that the scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. It is also a settled principle of law that the order disposing of a Criminal Revision must be a speaking order giving reasons in brief and indicating application of mind on facts or pleas placed before the court. It is also a settled principle of law that the order disposing of a Criminal Revision must be a speaking order giving reasons in brief and indicating application of mind on facts or pleas placed before the court. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court finds that though there is allegation of certain irregularities committed by the opposite party nos.2-4 in the recommendation for appointment of candidates in respect of advertisement 9/07 but this Court finds that there is no material in the record to show any criminal conspiracy or any meeting of mind between the opposite party nos.2-4 and the persons who allegedly have been benefitted by the alleged criminal act of the opposite party nos.2-4 and in the absence of any material regarding this the essential link, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record falls short of establishing the ingredients of any of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 424, 468, 469, 471-A, 120-B, 109, 201 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the materials in the record even after accepting all the allegations made in the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Bureau is considered to be true still the same is insufficient to establish the ingredients of any of offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 424, 468, 469, 471-A, 120-A, 109, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 more so because the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted closure report in the case of the due investigation, in the absence of any material regarding the culpability of the opposite party number is 2 to 4 in the offence alleged. Accordingly, this Court is of considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order requiring interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, this criminal revision, being without any merit, is dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned court below forthwith.