S.H.S. ABIDI, J.

1. Purushottam Das Goswami since deceased (petitioner no. 1), Keshav Narain Banerjee (petitioner no. 2) M/s. Central Manbhum Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Dubrajpur Rice Mill, Company Pvt. Ltd. and Yadav Lal Trust Estate (petitioners 3, 4 and respectively) have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for Short Cr. P.C.) for quashing the entire criminal proceeding constituting the Special Case No. 172 of 1980 including the order dated 27.2.1986 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patna by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharging them from the offence under sections 1203, 467, 468, 428, 471 and 477 of the Indian penal Code (for thou I.P.C.) and section 5(2) read with section 5 (1), (c) and (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner no. 1 Purushottam Das Goswami has died.

2. By the order dated 27.2.1986 the learned Special Judge had discharged the other accused, namely, D.C.L.R. (2) the Additional Collector Cum Compensation Officer & (3) the Collector Dhanbad against which the State of Bihar and the Cabinet Vigilance Department Government of Bihar filed Cr. Misc. No 8113 of 1986. On 25.2.1987 a request was made that as the common question is involved in both the cases (Cr. Misc. Nos. 4073 and 8113 of 1986) the same be listed for hearing together and so they were heard together by a Bench which referred the matter to a large Bench to decide the question also whether the Compensation Officer is a court. On the said reference a Full Bench on 15.1.1990 held:–

"The compensation officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, is not a court properly so called. It is not a Civil. Revenue or Criminal Court in the ordinary sense of that term. The Act under which the compensation officer is appointed does not contain any provision declaring such officer a court for the purpose of section 195 of the Code under the circumstance, the compensation officer cannot be held to be a court within the meaning of section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The decision in 1975 B.B.C.J. 656 is attracted in cases where the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are applicable so far as the present case is concerned, my answer to the question referred to the Full Bench is that a compensation officer appointed under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950, cannot be held to be a Court within the meaning of section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973."

Against this judgment of the full Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 4073/1986 petitioner no. 2 Keshav Narain Banerjee went to Supreme Court being petition. For Special Lean to Appeal (Criminal) No. 885 of 19 where it has been ordered:–

"The main criminal petition is still pending before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. We think that the appropriate course would be to adjourn this matter till that matter is disposed of so that if the petitioner wish to seek any remedies there against that may also be available to them. The matter is adjourned to 1st week of March 1991"

3. From the record it appears that Cr. Misc. No. 8113/1986 has been allowed by a Bench of this Court on 5.9.1990 holding.

"On the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is difficult to appreciate the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge that opposite party no. 1 came in picture only after the matter was over and he had made the draft compensation roll in a routine manner.

It need not be emphasised that the scope of evidence at the stage of framing of the charge is wide as at the final stage of the trial. It is not the stage to balance the materials produced by the prosecution on a sensitive scale to find out whether there are sufficient evidence for conviction of the accused. If the material on the record creates strong suspicion against the accused that is only for framing the charge.

In view of the foregoing discussion this petition is allowed and the order so far relates to oppo