1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Prayer of the petitioners in all these applications are same, as such, they have been heard together and being disposed of by a common order.

3. Initially these applications were filed for quashing the first information report of Laheri P.S. Case No. 88 of 2006 (Special Case No. 30 of 2006) and also the investigation in connection with the instant first information report. During the pendency of these applications, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance taken under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against all the petitioners vide order, dated 10.7.2007, by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. Interlocutory applications were filed by the petitioners for amending the prayer and for additional relief for quashing the charge-sheet and order, taking cognizance, dated 10.7.2007. Interlocutory applications were allowed and the amended prayer is for quashing the charge sheet and order taking cognizance, dated 10.7.2007, by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, in Special Case No. 30 of 2006. Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 30150 of 2006, Cr. Misc. No. 3908 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 13205 of 2007 are Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineer involved in widening, strengthening and construction of Biharsharif Ekangarsarai Telhara Road under Road Division, Biharsharif. Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 35189 of 2006 is the contractor, who was allotted the work for strengthening and widening of Biharsharif Ekangarsarai Telhara Road.

4. For construction of Biharsharif Ekangarsarai Telhara Road estimate of Rs. 471.23 lacs was administratively sanctioned by the Road Construction Department. Technical sanction was accorded by the Chief Engineer, Central Design and Education for estimated cost of Rs. 546.545 lacs. On completion of formalities, like administrative and technical sanction, tender was invited for construction of Biharsharif Ekangarsarai Road. Initially tender was invited for the widening and strengthening of the road. The petitioner, Ramakant Singh, was allotted the work and an agreement was executed in his favour. When the construction started the competent authority realized the need of additional work for which another estimate was prepared for additional work, not covered under the original agreement. Fresh tenders were invited for additional work vide advertisement, dated 11.2.1998, Ramakant Singh also submitted his tender which was found most responsive and the work was allotted by the Chief Engineers letter, dated 18.8.1998. As per the terms of agreement no. 111 Fe/1998-1999 the total construction was for Rs. 4,28,78,955.00. In terms of the agreement the liability to maintain the constructed road was for six months. It was also specified that in case of inferior quality of construction, the contractor will have to repair the same at his own cost, i.e., within the aforesaid six months of the accountability period. As per the agreement, the date of start of work was 15.11.1998 and the date of completion was on 30.4.1999, but, later on the Chief Engineer, South Bihar, Road Construction Department, extended the time for completion of work till 30.6.2001. Again, the Engineer-in-Chief vide his letter no. 1523 extended the time. As per the estimate 1624.28 metric tonne bitumen was to be provided to the contractor by the Road Construction Department. Case of the contactor is that out of total supplied bitumen 28.884 metric tonne was transferred to construction site at Fatuha Hilsa Ekangarsarai Road and, thus, he was provided only 1595.396 metric tonne bitumen. Out of total supplied bitumen 713.019 metric tonne was consumed and the remaining bitumen was to be handed over to the Department prior to finalization of the bill. The cost for excess supplied bitumen was adjusted from the pending bill of the contractor at penal rate for surplus bitumen. The penal cost f