JUDGMENT : G.A. SANAP, J. 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3. In this revision application, challenge is to the order dated 04.01.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court of C.B.I., Nagpur, whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the application at Exh. 154 made by the applicant/accused No. 6 for his discharge in a Special CBI case No. 1 of 2014. 4. The facts are as follows: On the basis of source information, against the unknown officials of Indian Bureau of Mines (For short ‘IBM’), Nagpur, the Directors and employees of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited and other private persons, on 03.07.2012, the FIR No. RC 219 2012(E) 0006, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 read with Sections 511, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (For short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’), was registered. The investigation conducted in the crime led to filing of chargesheet against eight accused persons. It is the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (For short ‘CBI’) that the officials of IBM, Nagpur in connivance with the Directors/Officials of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited committed the acts of forgery, cheating etc. for grant of mining lease of four areas of 186 HR, 381 HR, 388 HR and 646.47 HR held under preferential licences by submitting the statutory prospecting reports to the State Government, without undertaking the prospecting operations. It is stated that Government of Chhattisgarh, vide its order dated 31.01.2007, rejected the mining lease applications of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited, on the ground that the statutory prospecting reports, claimed to have been prepared and submitted by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited in May 2000, had reference of State of Chhattisgarh at several places, whereas the state came into existence on 01.11.2000 and as such, the claim of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited regarding submissions of statutory prospecting reports in May 2000 was false. In this process, the documents were forged. In the revision application, filed by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited against the order of Government of Chhattisgarh before the Mines Tribunal, the documents produced by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited were found to be forged. In this process, the documents were forged. In the revision application, filed by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited against the order of Government of Chhattisgarh before the Mines Tribunal, the documents produced by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited were found to be forged. It is stated that during the period from 1999 to 2008 the accused No. 9 Arvind Jayaswal entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused including the accused No. 6 and pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy all the accused persons attempted to cheat the State of Chhattisgarh to the tune of more than Rs.80,000/- crores value of the Iron Ore reserves estimated to be over 280 million tons in the Rowghat area of Narayanpur Forest, Chhattisgarh by using the forged documents for the purpose of granting mining lease over the four areas without actually conducting the prospecting operations in the said area. The CBI conducted the investigation and after thorough investigation found sufficient material to establish the complicity of the accused persons in the commission of the above crimes. Therefore, the CBI filed the chargesheet against the accused. 5. Accused No. 6 made an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is his case that he has been working in various companies for last 36 years. During his professional carrier he had never been involved in any kind of wrong doing or illegal activities. It is stated that in September 2001, he worked as vice president of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. In the month of November 2004, he joined as a ‘Director’ on the board of Directors of Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited, Nagpur, formally a part of the Neco Group of Companies, which included M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. Accused No. 6 stated that he signed number of letters/documents in his capacity as a Director of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited in the ordinary course of his official functions. This reflects upon his bona fides and genuineness. It is his contention that there is no evidence in the chargesheet against him to show that he conspired with the other accused in the commission of crime. There is no evidence to show that he acted with dishonest intention to make wrongful gain to himself and cause wrongful loss to the State of Chhattisgarh. It is his contention that there is no evidence in the chargesheet against him to show that he conspired with the other accused in the commission of crime. There is no evidence to show that he acted with dishonest intention to make wrongful gain to himself and cause wrongful loss to the State of Chhattisgarh. It is his contention that on the basis of the letter dated 29.01.2007 signed by him no fraudulent or dishonest intention can be attributed to him. It is his contention that said letter by applying any standard could not be said to be an evidence of his dishonest and fraudulent intention and as such, his participation in the crime of conspiracy. He therefore prayed for discharge. 6. The CBI filed reply and opposed the application. It is the contention of the CBI that during the relevant period, the applicant was not the Director of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. It is stated that despite this, he fraudulently and with dishonest intention signed the documents in his capacity as a Director of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited and addressed the same to the Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Nagpur. It is stated that the said letter dated 26.09.2007 contained false and unsupported facts with regard to the prospecting in the four areas of Rowghat Deposits. On the basis of the false statements, made pursuant to the conspiracy, he requested the Regional Controller of Mines, IBM Nagpur to confirm that the prospecting operations were carried out by the said company as per the requirements of the law and agreement. The investigation revealed that on the basis of this letter, prepared by accused No. 6, a false confirmation reports were issued by the co-accused, who are the officials of Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Nagpur. It is stated that the conspiracy was hatched to cause wrongful loss to the State of Chhattisgarh. In furtherance of the conspiracy, number of documents were forged to take the conspiracy to its logical end. The participation of accused No. 6 in the conspiracy has been fully established on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. 7. Learned Special Judge on sifting the relevant material, for the limited purpose, found that it was sufficient to presume the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime and as such, rejected his application for discharge. The participation of accused No. 6 in the conspiracy has been fully established on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. 7. Learned Special Judge on sifting the relevant material, for the limited purpose, found that it was sufficient to presume the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime and as such, rejected his application for discharge. The accused No. 6 is aggrieved by this order and therefore, he is before this Court. 8. I have heard learned Advocate Mr Hrishikesh Chitaley for accused No. 6 and the learned Advocate Mrs Mugdha Chandurkar for non-applicant/CBI. Perused the record and proceedings. 9. Learned Advocate for accused No. 6 submitted that the material compiled in the chargesheet is not sufficient to frame the charge against accused No. 6. Learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of the said material the complicity of accused No. 6 in the commission of crime with the other accused has not been established. Learned Advocate pointed out that the letter written by accused No. 6, dated 29.01.2007, to the Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Nagpur, even if considered as it is, would not be sufficient to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of crime. Learned Advocate submitted that admittedly accused No. 6, at the relevant time, was Director of one of the group Companies of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited and therefore, by mistake and oversight he might have mentioned his designation as Director below his signature on the said letter. Learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of this report no further action, as such, was taken to indicate that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the accused. Learned Advocate submitted that the complaint was made against the officials of IBM, Nagpur to the Central Vigilance Commission (For short ‘the CVC’). The Central Vigilance Commission conducted the inquiry and has exonerated the officials of the IBM on the same set of facts and evidence. Learned Advocate pointed out that the CBI has not taken this aspect into consideration before carrying out the investigation and filing of the chargesheet. The Central Vigilance Commission conducted the inquiry and has exonerated the officials of the IBM on the same set of facts and evidence. Learned Advocate pointed out that the CBI has not taken this aspect into consideration before carrying out the investigation and filing of the chargesheet. Learned Advocate relying upon the decision in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another, 2020 (9) SCC 636 submitted that in view of exoneration of the officials of the IBM, Nagpur by CVC the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances could not be filed against the accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that the order passed by the CVC was considered by the Mines Tribunal in its two orders. Learned Advocate further pointed that the revision was filed by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited, against the order of cancellation of mining lease by State of Chhattisgarh, before the Mines Tribunal. It is submitted that the Mines Tribunal has made threadbare analysis of the material and recorded a finding that acts committed by the officials of IBM were mere procedural irregularities. Learned Advocate submitted that the Delhi High Court, while deciding the petition filed against the order passed by the Mines Tribunal, has categorically observed that there was no substance in the allegations. Learned Advocate submitted that in second order passed by the Mines Tribunal there has been specific observation that the acts alleged to have been committed by the officials of the IBM, Nagpur are the irregularities and not the criminal offence. Learned Advocate submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh, in order to favour TATA Steel, to get the mining lease of the concern areas in Rowghat Deposit cancelled the mining lease in favour of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited and the officials of CBI on the basis of so called source information lodged the false report. Learned Advocate further submitted that all these facts are required to be taken into consideration. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore the role attributed to accused No. 6 is not different from the officials of the IBM, Nagpur. He is entitled for discharge. 10. Learned Advocate for the CBI submitted that on the basis of source information the crime was registered against the accused persons. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore the role attributed to accused No. 6 is not different from the officials of the IBM, Nagpur. He is entitled for discharge. 10. Learned Advocate for the CBI submitted that on the basis of source information the crime was registered against the accused persons. Learned Advocate pointed out that there is overwhelming voluminous oral and documentary evidence placed before the trial Court by CBI to establish that without conducting the prospecting operations the false reports were submitted. Learned Advocate pointed out that there is material on record to prima facie show that on the basis of the false and fabricated reports false confirmation reports were issued by co-accused A.R. Kamble and M.K. Prashar of IBM, Nagpur. Learned Advocate further submitted that letter dated 29.01.2007 addressed to the Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Nagpur by the accused is the most important piece of evidence to establish his complicity in the commission of crime as well as in the offences committed by the co-accused. Learned Advocate took me through the letter dated 29.01.2007 and pointed out that the statements made in the said letter clearly indicate that he was part of the conspiracy and being a part of the conspiracy he initiated and continued the further process to take the conspiracy to its logical conclusion. Learned Advocate further submitted that at the stage of deciding the discharge application or framing of charge, the Court has to consider whether the material compiled in the chargesheet is sufficient to presume the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. Learned Advocate took me through the statements of witnesses and various documents compiled in the chargesheet and submitted that this evidence was neither before the CVC nor before the mines Tribunal or Delhi High Court. Learned Advocate further submitted that as far as accused No. 6 is concerned he was not a party before the CVC or before Mines Tribunal. Learned Advocate submitted that the officials who were directly or indirectly involved in the inquiry before the CVC as well as proceedings before Mines Tribunal have not applied for their discharge on that count. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore on the basis of the result of the CVC inquiry as well as the observations of the Mines Tribunal and Delhi High Court the accused cannot be discharged. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore on the basis of the result of the CVC inquiry as well as the observations of the Mines Tribunal and Delhi High Court the accused cannot be discharged. Learned Advocate pointed out that CBI conducted thorough investigation in the crime and on the basis of the investigation found that all these accused had hatched the conspiracy and pursuant to the object of the conspiracy number of documents were forged and fabricated. Learned Advocate submitted that the scope of inquiry at the stage of deciding discharge application is very limited. Learned Advocate submitted that the order passed by the learned Special Judge is based on prima facie consideration of material on record and therefore, it does not warrant interference. 11. Learned Advocate for accused No. 6 and learned Advocate for the non-applicant/CBI relied upon number of decisions on the scope of inquiry and the consideration, at the stage of deciding the discharge application or at the stage of framing of charge. The proposition of law laid down in all the decisions is similar to the one laid down in three decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal vs. State of Goa and Another, (2020) 17 SCC 556 ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 . It would be profitable to consider the settled legal position which can be culled out from these decisions on the point. It is held that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to analyse all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence. In the case of Tarun Jit Tejpal (supra), it is held that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the Court cannot act as a mouth piece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is held that at the stage of consideration of application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. At this stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction. It is held that what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting accused has been made out. It is further held that the law does not permit a mini trial at the stage of deciding the discharge application or at the time of framing of charge. 12. In the backdrop of the legal position, as above, it would be necessary to appreciate the submissions. It is undisputed that the chargesheet has been filed against eight accused. The main charge leveled against accused is of criminal conspiracy. The investigation conducted by the CBI resulted into filing of the chargesheet. In the chargesheet, the CBI has compiled the evidence available against the accused persons. Some of the accused persons, who are the Government servants, have not applied for discharge. Accused No. 9- Arvind Kumar Jayaswal, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., had applied and he was discharged. As far as accused No. 6 is concerned, it is his case that the role attributed to him, by applying any standard, is not sufficient to justify his prosecution on the charge of conspiracy, cheating and forgery. It is undisputed that accused No 6 wrote a letter dated 29.01.2007, being Director of M/s Jayaswals Neco Limited. It is the case of CBI that at the relevant time he was not the Director of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. It is further case of the CBI that this letter was written by accused No. 6 to take the conspiracy to its logical end. At the cost of repetition, before going to the contents of the letter it is necessary to bear in mind the case of the CBI and the role of each and every accused revealed during the course of investigation. At the cost of repetition, before going to the contents of the letter it is necessary to bear in mind the case of the CBI and the role of each and every accused revealed during the course of investigation. M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited had preferential licenses for prospecting the forest areas for the purpose of granting the mining lease of four areas mentioned hereinabove. M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited, without conducting the prospecting operations, submitted the prospecting reports to the State Government. The applications made by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited for mining lease of the four areas were rejected by the State of Chhattisgarh. It was found that in the correspondence made on behalf of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited the reference to the name of State of Chhattisgarh was made in May 2000, whereas the State came into existence on 01.11.2000. It is case of CBI that for the purpose of granting the mining lease to M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited all the accused hatched the conspiracy. In the process of taking the conspiracy to logical conclusion various documents were forged. The attempts have been made to cheat the Government of Chhattisgarh on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to the tune of more than Rs.80,000/- crores, value of the Iron Ore reserves estimated to be over 280 million tons in the Rowghat area of Narayanpur Forest, Chhattisgarh. The investigation revealed that in terms of four prospecting licences, issued by Government of Madhya Pradesh, the prospecting was to be completed within two years in respect of the areas of 186 HR, 381 HR and 388 HR and within one year in respect of area 646.47 HR, in terms of the conditions of the prospecting licenses. Accused No. 5, on 16.05.2000, applied for granting four mining lease for the above areas by falsely claiming that M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited had prospected the areas within the stipulated scheduled time. He submitted the forged prospecting reports to the State Government. It is stated that in furtherance of the conspiracy, accused No. 7 prepared false prospecting reports. The investigation revealed that accused No. 7 had put his signature on all the four prospecting reports by predating the same. The State of Chhattisgarh rejected the four mining lease applications of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited on various grounds on 31.01.2007. It is stated that in furtherance of the conspiracy, accused No. 7 prepared false prospecting reports. The investigation revealed that accused No. 7 had put his signature on all the four prospecting reports by predating the same. The State of Chhattisgarh rejected the four mining lease applications of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited on various grounds on 31.01.2007. It is therefore seen that it is the case of CBI that without conducting the prospecting operations the reports were prepared and submitted. It is the case of CBI that it was done pursuant to the conspiracy. It is further case of CBI that in revision preferred against the order of Chhattisgarh dated 31.01.2007 all the forged and fabricated documents were relied upon to question the correctness of the said order. In the chargesheet, the CBI has compiled the documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation. 13. It is the case of CBI that accused No. 6 was also part of the said conspiracy and the letter written by him dated 29.01.2007 was the most important act committed by him to take the conspiracy to logical conclusion. The investigation conducted by CBI revealed that this letter written by accused No. 6, dated 29.01.2007, was marked by accused M. K. Prashar (A-3) to Ajay Shrivastav (A-1) on 12.02.2007. It revealed that by that time the request of mining lease of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited was rejected by the Government of Chhattisgarh. It is the case of the CBI that accused No. 6 was aware of the factual position. It is further case of CBI that accused No. 6 was occupying very important post in M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited and therefore, he cannot claim that he was either not aware of the stage of the proposal for issuance of mining lease to M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited or that before writing a letter he did not apprise himself about the real state of affairs. The investigation revealed that accused No. 1 Ajay Shrivastav intentionally put the said letter on the file. According to the CBI, the investigation revealed that accused Ashok Mahadeorao Kamble (A-2) had falsely put up the note on the file stating that it was in order and submitted it for the approval and signature. The investigation revealed that accused No. 1 Ajay Shrivastav intentionally put the said letter on the file. According to the CBI, the investigation revealed that accused Ashok Mahadeorao Kamble (A-2) had falsely put up the note on the file stating that it was in order and submitted it for the approval and signature. Accused No. 3 M.K. Prashar also confirmed the said fact and the letter dated 22.02.2007 was fraudulently issued by him certifying that there was no standard violation regarding prospecting operations for the areas stated above by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. It is further case of CBI that letter dated 29.01.2007 was used by accused Company (A-8) for getting relief from the Revisionary Authority. 14. Learned Advocate for the accused No. 6 relying upon the contents of the letter submitted that the contents of the letter clearly indicate that it was nothing but usual official correspondence. Learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of the contents of this letter it cannot be presumed that accused No. 6 was part of the conspiracy or shared the object of the conspiracy. Accused No. 6 had signed this letter as Director of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. Admittedly, he was not the Director. It is seen that this letter was the most important correspondence in the process of execution of mining lease of four areas in favour of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited. Perusal of this letter would show that accused No. 6 has made categorical statement in this letter that M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited had carried out the prospecting as per the prospecting scheme already submitted. In his letter, he has narrated the nature of the work undertaken during the course of prospecting operations. In this letter he has made a reference to the prospecting reports. It was stated that the IBM had received all the four reports on 17.05.2000. In my view, the facts stated in these reports if considered prima facie for the limited purpose of deciding the discharge application, it would show that the case put forth by the accused No. 6 for his discharge from the prosecution is not acceptable. 15. The CBI conducted the thorough investigation. The statements of number of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. Learned Advocate for the CBI took me through the list of witnesses and the substance of the evidence of those witnesses. 15. The CBI conducted the thorough investigation. The statements of number of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. Learned Advocate for the CBI took me through the list of witnesses and the substance of the evidence of those witnesses. The CBI has cited near about 37 witnesses in the chargesheet. It is seen that majority of the witnesses have attributed role in conspiracy to the accused on the basis of the false documentary evidence prepared in the process. In this case the main offence is of conspiracy. In case of a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons is a sine qua non. Secrecy is the hallmark of offence of conspiracy. It may not be possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct evidence. The existence of conspiracy and its object can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. It needs to be stated that at the stage of final decision by the Court in case of a charge of conspiracy the Court must be satisfied that the incriminating circumstances relied by the prosecution form a chain of events from which the conclusion about the guilt of the accused would be drawn. 16. In the backdrop of the prima facie sifting through the evidence compiled in the chargesheet it is seen that the prospecting reports were prepared without conducting the prospecting operations. The prospecting reports were submitted with the mining lease applications. The officials of IBM and other Government Officials processed the file of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited on the basis of the prospecting reports. There are number of documents relied upon by the CBI to substantiate its case that some of the documents were forged to take the conspiracy to its logical conclusion. The documents have been placed on record. The witnesses have stated about the documents and the circumstances under which the documents were prepared. It is seen that in some of documents there was reference of the State of Chhattisgarh. It is therefore apparent on the face of record that this is not a fit case to discharge the accused. In my view, the defence of the accused of his false implication, if considered in the teeth of the material compiled in the chargesheet, does not justify his discharge. It is therefore apparent on the face of record that this is not a fit case to discharge the accused. In my view, the defence of the accused of his false implication, if considered in the teeth of the material compiled in the chargesheet, does not justify his discharge. The material compiled in the chargesheet, in my opinion, is sufficient to presume the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences. At the stage of discharge or a framing of a charge, the pros and cons of the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case cannot be gone into. If the material is evaluated and the pros and cons are considered, then it would be nothing short of holding a mini trial. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, as above, it is not permissible to hold mini trial at the stage of the charge or while deciding the discharge application. Learned Special Judge has taken the facts and entire material into consideration. Learned Special Judge concluded that the evidence on record is sufficient to frame the charge against the accused. Learned Special Judge found that the defence of the accused put forth in his discharge application cannot be accepted and he cannot be discharged while deciding his discharge application. 17. Learned Advocate for the accused No. 6 submitted that on the same set of allegations and the documents the inquiry was conducted by CVC. The CVC has opined that the acts committed by the officials of the Government would constitute procedural irregularities. Learned Advocate pointed out that the order of CVC was heavily relied upon by the officials of IBM as well as by M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited in the proceeding before the Mines Tribunal. It is submitted that decisions of the Mines Tribunal was challenged before Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court has agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the Mines Tribunal that the acts committed by the officials would constitute procedural irregularities and not a criminal offence. Learned Advocate relying upon decision in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) submitted that once the accused Government Servant is exonerated on merits by the CVC, on the same state of facts criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. 18. It is to be noted that accused No. 6 is not the Government Servant. Learned Advocate relying upon decision in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) submitted that once the accused Government Servant is exonerated on merits by the CVC, on the same state of facts criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. 18. It is to be noted that accused No. 6 is not the Government Servant. He was not part of the proceeding before the CVC. The Government Servants, who have been arrayed as an accused in this case, were the part of the inquiry before the CVC. Learned Advocate for the CBI pointed out that the accused who are the Government servants in this case have not applied for discharge or adopted any proceedings either for quashing or otherwise of the prosecution against them. It is seen that after the final decision of the Mines Tribunal on the basis of the source information the FIR was registered and the investigation was conducted. During the Course of investigation the CBI officials, as can be seen from the evidence compiled in the chargesheet, stumbled upon voluminous evidence, which ultimately led to the filing of chargesheet against the accused. The CBI on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation applied for sanction of the Government Servants. The Government has granted sanction for their prosecution. The accused, who are the Government Servants in this case, have not made any grievance about the prosecution against them or the sanction accorded by the Government. In my view, therefore, the accused No. 6, being the non Government Servant and that he was not part of the inquiry before the CVC, cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the said order. In this case, the main charge is of conspiracy. The evidence compiled in the chargesheet is sufficient to presume the involvement of the accused No. 6 in the conspiracy. The evidence compiled in the chargesheet cannot be discarded and disbelieved at the stage of discharge of the accused. In my view, therefore, the decision in the case of Ashoo Tewari (supra). will be of no help to the case of accused No. 6. 19. On going through the record and proceedings I am satisfied that the case has not been made out to discharge the accused No. 6. The revision application, therefore deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 20. It is seen that the crime was registered on 03.07.2012. will be of no help to the case of accused No. 6. 19. On going through the record and proceedings I am satisfied that the case has not been made out to discharge the accused No. 6. The revision application, therefore deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 20. It is seen that the crime was registered on 03.07.2012. The chargesheet was filed in the year 2014. The application, made by accused No. 6, for quashing the FIR against him, was withdrawn by him on 29.04.2014. He applied for discharge on 30.01.2016. Learned Judge rejected his application on 04.01.2020. It is seen that the case is pending before the Special Court since 2014. In the facts and circumstances, in my view, it would be necessary to expedite the hearing of the trial. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge is directed to dispose of the Special CBI Case No. 01 of 2014 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. 21. The revision application stands disposed of, accordingly.