The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard required for discharge of an accused in a warrant case and the need for strong suspicion about the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. This common order will dispose of both the Criminal Revision Applications which arise out of the same order dated 21-9-1998 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 14 of 1997. Both the revision applications involve common questions of fact and law and, therefore, it is desirable that they should be disposed of simultaneously by a common order.

3. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 136 of 1998 are the original accused No.1, 3 and 4 whereas the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 186 of 1998 is original accused No.2 in Special Case No. 14 of 1997, which is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the charge that all the applicants - accused have committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The applicants had moved two separate applications purporting to be applications under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge. The learned Special Judge, however, rejected both the applications by passing a common order holding that the material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against all the applicants - accused. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 136 of 1998 have filed the present application under section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant in Criminal revision application No. 186 of 1998 has filed the application under section 397 read with section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant facts which are necessary to be taken into consideration for deciding both the Revision applications are, in brief, as follows.

4. The prosecution against the four accused arises out of a transaction regarding purchase of 26 conventional drills and 3 hydrostatic drills made during the year 1990 for and on behalf of the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited (MECL), which is a Government of India undertaking. During the relevant period, accused No. 1 P. D. Gupta was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of MECL. Accused No. 2 M. S. Shenoy Nagar was the Director (Technical), accused No.3 R. M. Sharma was working as a General Manager (Material Management) and accused No.4 - B. P. Sinha was working as the Chief Drilling Engineer in MECL at Nagpur. The allegation against these four accused in brief is to the effect that during the year from 1989 to 1991, they had made a conspiracy to cause a wrongful loss to the MECL and wrongful gain to them or any other person in the matter of purchase of drills. It is further alleged that pursuant to the said conspiracy, 26 conventional drills and 3 hydrostatic drills of the total value of Rs. 3.27 crores came to be purchased though they were not required by the MECL. Moreover, the accused disregarded the financial constraints and also violated the due procedure. It is alleged that due to such act of the accused, a huge amount of the MECL was unnecessarily blocked and the same has resulted in a recurring loss of interest of Rs. 1.17 crores.

5. I have heard Shri M. H. Rizwy and Shri P. N. Chandurkar, learned advocates for the applicants accused and also Shri E. S. Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent C.B.I. The learned advocates have taken me through the relevant documents and statements to point out the truth and correctness of their respective submissions. I shall refer to their submissions a little later. As already indicated, the applicants - accused filed their application under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code probably under an impression that a special case under the Act is triable by the procedure prescribed for a Sessions case under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that a Special Judge appointed for the trial of the cases under Prevention of Corruptio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document