ORDER :

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. The challenge in these appeals is against a common judgment and order dated 21st February, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, by which the continuation of Special Case No. 30 of 2006 in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Patna (corresponding to Laheri P.S. Case No. 88/2006) has been interdicted by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code").

3. The aforesaid criminal proceeding against the respondents was registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short "IPC") and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The First Information Report ("FIR" for short), on the basis of which the case against the respondents accused was registered was lodged on 24th June, 2006. Upon investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents accused on 8th March, 2007 finding, prima facie, allegations of commission of the offences alleged. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the filing of the FIR followed by the charge-sheet was preceded by a detailed vigilance inquiry which was ordered as far back as on 6th July, 2001 and report whereof was submitted by the Authorized Officer on 17th February, 2004. In the FIR lodged as well as in the charge-sheet filed against the respondents accused, there is a detailed reference to the report of the vigilance inquiry indicating the findings recorded in support of the charges levelled against the accused.

5. From the aforesaid documents it appears that the substratum of the prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, were connected with the work of strengthening and widening of Biharsharif Ekangarsari Telhara Road in Nalanda Road Construction Division executed by the accused contractor. The further allegation against the accused respondents is that they had conspired with the contractor to embezzle Government funds and permitted withdrawal of payments by the contractor in spite of the works not being executed at all and wherever executed, the same was unsatisfactory and not in accordance with the specifications spelt out. The further allegation against the accused respondents was lack of supervision and failure to deduct the penal rates of recovery for excess allotment of bitumen and also failure to deduct sales tax and royalty. All the aforesaid deductions were not made at the time of passing of the Running bills of the contractor which, according to the prosecution, facilitated the unauthorized receipt of the amounts by the contractor. The accused, therefore, were alleged to be in collusion with each other in commission of the offences under Section 406, 409, 420, 120B of the IPC and in commission of the offences alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as noticed above.

6. Specifically, a reading of the charge-sheet dated 8th March, 2007 would go to show that the widening of the road work was not as per specification and that the quality of the work suffered from serious irregularities which was, in addition to the Vigilance Officer, confirmed by the Zonal Superintending Engineer who had also conducted an inspection. The allegations of supply of excess bitumen; failure to recover excess cost despite payments made in the running bills and also the failure to recover royalty and sales tax without deduction in the running bills were all mentioned to have been, prima facie, established in the course of the investigation of the FIR on the basis of which the charge-sheet was submitted before the Competent Court.

7. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts revealed by the investigation carried out in respect of the offences alleged that the liability of the accused respondents to face a full-scale trial was r