Heard Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

2. By this revision, the petitioner/accused No.4 in Special Case No. 2/2007 takes exception to the order dated 11-7-2008 passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, by which the Special Judge has directed framing of charge against the petitioner for offences under section 120-B read with 420, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with 13(1)( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

3. The petitioner along with four other accused namely, Vilas Vasudev Kunkolienkar, Peter Vincent Pereira, Mrs. Viyashree V. Kunkolienkar and Romeo J. Pereira have been charge-sheeted by the respondent for the above referred offences.

4. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy along with accused Nos. 1,2,3, and 5 and withdrew cash from Savings Bank Account No. 3008 of accused Nos. 2 and 5 and thus cheated Dena Bank, Arpora. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1Nilas Kunkolienkar acting as the Manager of Dena Bank granted loans to his own wife accused No. 3 Niyashree Kunkolienkar, accused No. 2/Peter Pereira and accused No. 5/Romeo Pereira without executing proper documents and in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy granted loans to the extent of over Rs. 95 lakhs which were never repaid by the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and pursuant to the said conspiracy, the petitioner withdrew an amount of Rs. 4,10,000/-. Learned Special Judge by the impugned order has ordered framing of charge against the petitioner under the above referred sections. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

4-A. Mr. Dessai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a valuable right accrues under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused to satisfy the Court that no case is made out for framing of charge against him. The learned counsel further submitted that the FIR initially filed only implicated the other accused and there was absolutely no reference to any role played by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner being a peon in Agriculture Department, no charge could have been framed under section 13(2) read with 13(1)( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act inasmuch as the acts alleged against the petitioner are not in connection with the discharge of duties and there is absolutely no finding recorded by the Special Judge as to how the petitioner can be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the learned counsel, simple withdrawal of the amounts on the basis of cheques and withdrawal slips duly signed by the accused Nos. 2 and 5 does not establish any offence against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no material on record to establish prima facie offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to learned counsel, sanctioning of loans to the petitioner by accused No. 1 is an independent transaction and at the most it can be terms as an irregularity but ~t no stretch of imagination, the same can be termed as amounting to cheating the bank. According to the learned counsel, the material on record does not implicate the petitioner in any offence and therefore, there is absolutely no case for framing of charge against the petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon the same authorities, which were relied upon before the 'Special Judge.

5. Per contra, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the material on record prima facie makes out the offences for which charge has been ordered to be framed by the learned Special Judge. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prima facie the role of the petitioner in the conspiracy hatched by all the accused to cheat Dena Bank, Arpora is made out. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that though in the origi