JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , with a prayer to quash the order dated 31.01.2018 in connection with FIR No. RC-219/2011E/13 by which the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the AJC XVI-cum-Special Judge CBI, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 09.01.2019 in connection with FIR No. RC-219/2011E/13 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder charges have been framed against the petitioner involving the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 , 11, 12, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequential reliefs. 3. The undisputed fact remains that during the trial of the case, in the meanwhile 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner while being the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and the Power Minister directed Binod Sinha and others to negotiate 2.5 % of the tender amount of the package E, F & G from IVRCL- who was awarded tender of the work of design, engineering, testing, supply, erection, commissioning of new line, augmentation of existing lines, installation of distribution of transformers etc. The matter was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau which was earlier known as Vigilance. Vigilance after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet and the copy of which has been annexed at Annexure-3 at page-100 of the brief and found the allegations inter alia against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 409 , 420, 423, 467, 468 471 and 120(B)/34 and Section 7 /13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. On the basis of which learned Special Judge, Vigilance Ranchi took cognizance of the offences in respect of which the charge-sheet was submitted inter alia against the petitioner. The said order is not under challenge, in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 4. On the basis of which learned Special Judge, Vigilance Ranchi took cognizance of the offences in respect of which the charge-sheet was submitted inter alia against the petitioner. The said order is not under challenge, in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that C.B.I. took up the investigation of F.I.R. No.38 of 2010 on 14.10.2011; even though it is admitted case of the petitioner that the investigation of the said F.I.R. No.38 of 2010 was already complete much before 14.10.2011 and even the Special Judge, took cognizance of the offences, which cognizance order has not yet been challenged, much before 14.10.2011 i.e. on 25.02.2011. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, since the C.B.I. subsequently submitted a closure report, learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi has not considered the observations made by the C.B.I. in its closure report which was done on the basis of the investigation of the case, on the investigation of the case being transferred to the C.B.I.; even though no such investigation was pending and in fact cognizance was already taken and C.B.I. did not obtain any order from any court to do any further investigation in a case in which charge-sheet was already submitted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem & S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2015) 14 SCC 491 submits that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted leave for the Civil Appeal but dismissed the Civil Appeal, the said Civil Appeal having been preferred against the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court with the same cause title reported in (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Madras); so it was held in that case that, the observation of the Hon’ble Madras High Court that the statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act is not given any evidentiary value, has received the seal of approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Virendra Bahadur Katheria & Ors. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Virendra Bahadur Katheria & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 524 , in para-43 whereof the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that once leave is granted in a Special Leave Petition, regardless of whether such appeal is subsequently dismissed with or without reasons, the doctrine of merger comes into play, resulting in merger of the order under challenge, with that of the order of the appellate forum. 6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has erroneously been mentioned in para-8 of the petition that the transfer of investigation of F.I.R of Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 of 2010 to the C.B.I. was made by the order dated 04.08.2010 as by that date the F.I.R. of Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010 was not even registered and the F.I.R of Vigilance Case No.38 of 2010 was registered only on 30.08.2010 subsequent to the order dated 04.08.2010. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Special Judge has committed an illegality by considering the statement of D. K. Srivastava in the impugned order to support its contention that there is prima facie case in the matter of faming of charge. Hence, it is submitted the prayer as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI vehemently opposes the prayer. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that the self- same prayer made by the co-accused Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Sinha to quash the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi; has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022 in Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2018 taking into consideration all the relevant matters. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that since the cognizance order dated 25.02.2011 made in this case is not under challenge and has thus attained finality, so, the subsequent closure report cannot have bearing on the said cognizance order. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that since the cognizance order dated 25.02.2011 made in this case is not under challenge and has thus attained finality, so, the subsequent closure report cannot have bearing on the said cognizance order. It is next submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the statement of D.K. Srivastava having been recorded under Section 13 3A of the Income Tax Act is not admissible in evidence, is concerned, the same is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao reported in (2023) 17 SCC 688 and in para-13 of which it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the opposite party further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors . reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 which judgment was also relied upon by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order and submits that in that case as already a direction was given by the High Court to the CBI to enquire into the matter and submit the report to the Court; in such backdrop of that case, where unlike this case, there was no cognizance order passed by the competent court of law in respect of any earlier charge-sheet submitted by the Delhi Police, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-42 of the said judgment, observed that reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto, to which the court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds that the accused has committed the offence. It is next submitted that in this case the undisputed fact remains that investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 of 2010 was already concluded with submission of the Final Report and consequent upon that cognizance of the offence has been taken by the competent court of law, which is not under challenge; the closure report of CBI cannot be said to have any bearing upon the materials available on record basing upon which the competent court of law has taken cognizance of the offences. Hence, it is submitted that the instant Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available on records, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge the court is not expected to go deep into the probative values of the materials on record as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinha Kishorsinh Rao (Supra) . The undisputed fact of the case is that in the Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 of 2010 after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and basing upon the same, cognizance has been taken by the competent court of law. As the said cognizance order has not been challenged, the same has attained finality. After the cognizance of the offence was taken, the CBI registered a case on the basis of investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 of 2010 being transferred to it but the question arises that, when investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 of 2010 was already complete, before registration of F.I.R. on 14.10.2011 by the CBI, then whether the State of Jharkhand was competent to transfer an investigation of the case, which was not existing to the CBI. But none of the parties could make any submission in this respect. 10. But none of the parties could make any submission in this respect. 10. Be that as it may, considering the fact that so far 13 witnesses have already been examined during the trial and the trial of the case proceeded substantially at this belated stage; keeping in view that the sufficient material is in the record basing upon which cognizance of the offences has been taken by the competent court of law, and the said cognizance order has not been challenged and has attained finality and after considering the materials in the record charge has already been framed. This court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the order dated 31.01.2018, in connection with FIR No. RC-219/2011E/13 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi and subsequent order dated 09.01.2019 in connection with FIR No. RC-219/2011E/13 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, by which charge has been framed against the petitioner is to be quashed and set aside, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. being without merit is dismissed.