ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.43/2015 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, have filed this revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prayer in the petition is to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.394/2020 in the above case, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the plea of discharge, at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. 3. As per the final report, the prosecution allegations are as under: That the accused A1 while working as the Municipal Secretary during the period from 03.03.2004 to30.08.2005, A2 while working as the Municipal Engineer during the period from 17.06.2004 to 30.08.2006 and A4 while working as the Municipal Chair Person during the period from July 2003 to September 2005 in Alappuzha Municipality and as such being public servants they abused their official pension with intention to obtain pecuniary advantages to A3 who was the Asst.Engineer worked in Alappuzha Municipality during the period from 23.09.2003 to 28.08.2005 and the implementing officer of departmentally executed works under maintenance grant for the year 2004-05 of Alappuzha Municipality, the A1, A2 & A4 entered in to criminal conspiracy with A3, and in furtherance of the conspiracy a total amount of Rs.90,61,200/- was unauthorizedly sanctioned as advance to A3 in several instances for implementing 29 maintenance works. A3 being the implementing officer, without adjusting any of the amount he had received as advance, dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs.67,26,272/- by spending only Rs.23,34,928/- there by the accused persons cheated the Government in the implementation of 26 maintenance works against the advance drawn of Rs.90,61,200/- during the period from 7.3.2005 to 28.7.2005. For concealing the above misappropriation A3 forged the documents such as bills, M Books etc. pertaining to the above works and used them as genuine. Thus A1 to A4 committed offences punishable u/s.13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and 409,420,468, 471 and120(B) IPC. 4. For concealing the above misappropriation A3 forged the documents such as bills, M Books etc. pertaining to the above works and used them as genuine. Thus A1 to A4 committed offences punishable u/s.13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and 409,420,468, 471 and120(B) IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that as per the documents produced as Ext.B4 along with the final report now produced before this Court as Annexure A, it could be gathered that when the Government granted Rs.139.74 Lakh to Municipality, Alappuzha, out of which, Rs.126 Lakh for the purpose of maintenance of building and Rs.13 lakh for maintenance of roads, with direction to spend the same on or before 31.03.2005, a decision was taken to make use of the fund by the Municipal Council and in consequence of thereof, as stated in Annexure C of this revision petition, it was decided to keep Rs.1 Crore in the account of the Municipal Secretary and the same was sanctioned by the Council. Thereafter, work was entrusted to be done by the 3 rd accused, who is the Assistant Engineer during the relevant period and while so, on his request, initially, Rs.20 Lakh was given as advance and a total sum of Rs.1,39,74,000/- entrusted with him. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, even though guidelines issued by the Government relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor vide G.O.P.No.516/04/Fin. dated 03.11.2004, it has been provided that no amount shall be drawn as advance in anticipation of expenditure and money shall be drawn only according to the actual requirement, advances in absolutely essential cases are permitted to be drawn. 5. In this case, in order to spend the money within the time bound manner, the 3 rd accused was authorized to do the work and advance was given with bona fide intention and accused Nos.1 and 2 did not have any dishonest intention at the time of entrustment of work with the 3 rd accused, which is one of the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter). The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued further that, as per Section 3(3) of the Kerala Municipality (Execution of Public Works and Purchase of Materials) Rules, 1997 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1997’ hereinafter), subject to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, the council shall decide whether a public work is to be executed on contract basis, or directly by the Municipality or through the beneficiary committee and shall make it clear while giving administrative sanction. Referring to this Section, the point argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in this case, in view of the power available under Section 3(3) of the Rules, 1997, the Municipality decided to do the work as its own and as part of the same, the Assistant Engineer was entrusted to do the work. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, when the Assistant Engineer was entrusted to do the work as in the case of contractors and beneficiaries, he could not raise funds from his pocket. Therefore, providing funds in advance became necessary, and accordingly, it was done by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, later, the 3 rd accused repaid Rs.34,38,800/-, but failed to show expenses and vouchers for Rs.45,00,000/-. The 1 st accused issued order bearing No.P2-504/05, dated 09.05.2005 as in page No.126 of Annexure C, either to produce the vouchers and bills or to repay the amount within 24 hours with alert to get the same realized otherwise with 24% interest. Thus, the bona fide action taken by accused Nos.1 and 2 could not be meddled with as a case of misappropriation, so as to punish them and in such view of the matter, none of the offences would attract as against revision petitioners 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed decision of this Court in Mannarkad Municipality and Others v. Abdul Gafoor and Another reported in [ 2021 (2) KHC 152 ] , wherein, in paragraph No.18, it was held as under: 18.........wherever there is a power conferred on the Secretary of the Municipality under the provisions of Act, 1994 and the rules, if any, thereto, the Municipal Council, the Chairperson or the Chairman of Standing Committee or any Councillor has power to interfere with the exercise of such powers by the Secretary. In all other respects the Secretary is a subordinate authority to the Municipal Council and is duty bound go implement the decisions of the council subject to the powers conferred under the provisos to S.49 of Act 1994. The learned counsel also placed decision of the Apex Court in C.Chenga Reddy and Others v. State of A.P. reported in [1996 KHC 1264] with reference to paragraph No.56 where the Apex Court held as under: 56................We have not found it possible to take a view different than the one taken by the courts below in this regard though in our opinion the breach of codal provisions or violation of the circulars and instructions and commission of administrative irregularities cannot be said to have been done by the officials concerned with any corrupt or dishonest intention. Learned counsel appearing for all the appellants also during the course of their arguments were unable to point out any error in those findings and according to them in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the irregularities, administrative lapses and violation of the codal provisions, could only have resulted in a departmental action against the officials but criminal prosecution was not justified. 6. Dispelling the contentions at the instance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor read out the allegations in the charge and submitted that the revised guideline No.5.2(g), as per G.O.(P).No.516/04/Fin. dated 03.11.2004, does not give a clear authorization to give advance in anticipation of the expenditure. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the provision of advances in anticipation of expenditure shall be made only upon satisfaction of actual requirements, and only if it is absolutely essential and supported by a plan and other applicable guidelines that specifically permit such advances. Therefore, in the instant case, there is clear violation of the guidelines while entrusting the total sum of Rs.139 Lakh at the hands of the 3 rd accused. According to him, as per the expert report prepared by CW1, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Special Building Sub Division, Alappuzha, when the works done by the 3 rd accused was assessed, it was found that the work done is only for Rs.23,34,928/- and therefore, the 3 rd accused dishonestly misappropriated Rs.67,26,272/- and accused Nos.1 and 2 facilitated the said illegal gain to the 3 rd accused and corresponding loss to the Government. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, during investigation, it was found that some of the bills and vouchers produced by the 3 rd accused are forged documents. Thus, the allegation as to commission of the above offences is well made out prima facie. He also submitted that, it is the settled law that in order to frame charge, what is required is a grave suspicion against the accused, which could not be properly explained and in support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of the Apex Court in State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S.Selvi and Another reported in [2017 KHC 6899] 7. Coming to the essentials to be considered while framing charge against an accused, the legal position argued by the learned Public Prosecutor is not in dispute. It is a settled principle of law that if the prosecution materials, either prima facie or otherwise, disclose a strong suspicion regarding the commission of an offence by the accused, the trial court could frame charge and proceed with the trial. However, the strong suspicion shall not be a mere vague or baseless suspicion. 8. Coming to the allegations herein, it could be gathered that the Government granted Rs.139.74 Lakh to the Municipality, Alappuzha, out of which, Rs.126 Lakh for the maintenance of building and Rs.13 lakh for maintenance of roads, with direction to spend the same on or before 31.03.2005. Thereafter, it was decided to keep Rs.1 Crore in the account of the Municipal Secretary, as per decision of the Municipal Council. Thereafter, the 3 rd accused was entrusted to do 29 maintenance works and in this connection, Rs.139 Lakh was transferred in his account. Though initially, only Rs.20 Lakh was transferred in the name of the 3 rd accused, a total sum of Rs.139 Lakh was entrusted with him and he, as part of conspiracy hatched between him and accused Nos.1 and 2 did not carry out the work properly for the said sum and the work he had done and assessed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, was found to be for the value of Rs.23,34,928/-. Thus, it was reported that Rs.67,26,272/- out of the total sum of Rs.90,61,200/- was misappropriated by the 3 rd accused, as the outcome of conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 to 3, though the 3 rd accused repaid the remaining amount, out of Rs.139 Lakh. Thus, it was reported that Rs.67,26,272/- out of the total sum of Rs.90,61,200/- was misappropriated by the 3 rd accused, as the outcome of conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 to 3, though the 3 rd accused repaid the remaining amount, out of Rs.139 Lakh. It is true that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1997, the council shall decide whether a public work is to be executed on contract basis, or directly by the Municipality or through the beneficiary committee and shall make it clear while giving administrative sanction. Therefore, there is no legal bar for the Municipality to execute the work directly. However, when such a power is provided by the Rules, that should be exercised with care and caution after ensuring that public funds would not be misutilized or misappropriated, in any manner. Although the attempt of the Municipality to retain Rs.1 Crore in the account of the Municipal Secretary to avoid lapse of the amount, could not be faulted, being bona fide, after entrusting 29 maintenance works to be carried out by the 3 rd accused transferring Rs.139 Lakh in his account without verifying the works, could not be viewed lightly and the same, in fact, is the starting point of misconduct done by the accused. 9. In this connection, it is relevant to note that even though as per G.O.P.No.516/04/Fin. dated 03.11.2004 produced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and which is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, provides authorization to give advance in anticipation of expenditure, the same is not an unbridled power. Going by the Government Order, it is emphatically clear that the provision of advances in anticipation of expenditure shall be made only upon satisfaction of actual requirements, and only if it is absolutely essential and supported by a plan and other applicable guidelines that specifically permit such advances. Going by the above wordings in the Government Order, it is emphatically clear that bulk transfer of a huge sum in the name of the 3 rd accused, who was authorized to do the work on behalf of the Municipality, is not contemplated either by the Government Order or any other rules or regulations. It is interesting to note further that, after completion of the works, the 3 rd accused failed to produce proper bills and vouchers justifying the works he had carried out. It is interesting to note further that, after completion of the works, the 3 rd accused failed to produce proper bills and vouchers justifying the works he had carried out. Only under compulsion, he had produced bills and vouchers partially and thus, the 3 rd accused could not account for the total work to the tune of Rs.90,61,200/- carried out by the 3 rd accused. As per the assessment made by the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD with regard to the works, it was found that the work carried out was only by spending Rs.23,34,928/- and Rs.67,26,272/- was illegally obtained by the 3 rd accused, since the same was assisted by accused Nos.1 and 2, as part of conspiracy hatched in between them. If this is the allegation, in fact, the same would require trial by framing charge, as the prosecution records would justify a prima facie case against the accused including the revision petitioners. Thus, the contention raised by the revision petitioners at the pre-trial stage, which would require adjudication, after adducing evidence, cannot be entertained at the pre-trial stage. Since the prosecution materials prima facie would show the allegations against the revision petitioners are made out, dismissal of their discharge petition by the Special Judge is only to be confirmed. In view of the matter, this petition is liable to fail. In the result, this Crl.R.P. stands dismissed. The interim order of stay granted by this Court, stands vacated. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, for information and compliance.