The judgment emphasizes the need for expedited trials concerning offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and highlights the principles to determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused.

.JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Heard.

2. These are three revision applications filed by the applicants herein challenging a common order dated 21.11.2016, passed by the Court of District Judge-4, Chandrapur, whereby applications for discharge filed by the applicants herein, were dismissed.

3. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 214/2016, were employees of SAIL-Chandrapur Ferro Alloy Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited, which was known as Elektrosmelt India Limited. The applicant No. 1 in the said application was the Executive Director of the plant, while applicant No. 2 was General Manager (Finance) and applicant No. 3 was General Manager, (Material Management and Marketing), at the relevant time. The applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 208/2016 was a supplier and Proprietor from whom the aforesaid plant purchased coal. Similarly, the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 209/2016 was also another such supplier and proprietor.

4. The present applications concerned initiation of investigation by the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the applicants and other accused persons. In pursuance of the enquiry and investigation, the respondent registered a First Information Report (FIR) on 31.05.2012, against the applicants and others for having committed offences under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation in the FIR was that the aforesaid plant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 57,47,989/- due to the criminal conspiracy entered into between the accused persons, including the applicants herein. It was alleged that a process of tender initiated on behalf of the said plant for purchase of coal had reached finality, wherein the lowest bidders had been identified and instead of placing orders for purchase of coal, the officials of the said plant, including the applicants in Revision Application No. 214/2016, cancelled the tender. A process of re-tendering, which was illegal and against the Purchase/Contract Procedure- 2009 (PCP-09), was initiated in conspiracy with the applicants in Criminal Revision Applications No. 208/2016 and 209/2016, thereby leading to purchase orders from such suppliers at a much higher rate, resulting in the said wrongful financial loss to the plant.

5. Upon registration of FIR, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. In the process, the respondent recorded statements of a number of witnesses. It was claimed that the oral and documentary material that had come on record was sufficient to frame charges against the applicants herein. It was stated in the charge-sheet that specifications pertaining to the chemical qualities of coal were deliberately changed in the re-tendering process, as a result of which coal was purchased at a higher rate as compared to the lowest bids offered in the initial process of tendering. As per the material placed before the Court along with charge-sheet, the initial tender was cancelled by bringing about pressure on the members of the tender scrutiny committee of the plant and such pressure was brought by the applicants before this Court. It was claimed that the entire process of cancellation of the earlier tender and the process of re-tendering was undertaken in a dishonest manner, against public interest and this was evident from the fact that the coal purchased upon re-tendering was 13.54% more expensive than the rate at which the coal could have been purchased as per the lowest bids in the initial tender.

6. At this stage, the applicants filed discharge applications before the Court below. It was claimed that there was no material to support the allegations made against the applicants. It was submitted that even if the material was to be accepted as it is, there were no ingredients of the offences with which the applicants were sought to be charged. By ref