The main legal point established in the judgment is that the loading of excess petroleum products on different dates constituted separate conspiracies, and the trial jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld.

Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.C Keyal, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bureau of Economic Offences (BIEO), Assam.

2. Both the petitioners herein were employees of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). At the relevant time when the alleged incident leading to this writ petition took place, the petitioner No.1 was entrusted with the duty of Loading Operator, whereas the petitioner No.2 was entrusted with the duty of Weigh Bridge Operator under the respondent IOCL. The duties entrusted to both the petitioners were to ensure that the correct volume of petroleum products are loaded on the tanker lorries at the disposal points of the IOCL.

3. According to the BIEO, Assam, certain information were received that excess petroleum products are being loaded to the tanker lorries without being duly authorized, resulting in pilferage of petroleum products from the IOCL disposal points located at Guwahati Refinery in Guwahati. Consequent thereof, a team of officials from the BIEO, Assam conducted an enquiry and on 29.12.2012, detected an unmanned tanker lorry bearing registration No.ML-01-7767 parked outside the main gate of the Guwahati Refinery at Noonmati which was loaded with petroleum products. But, when no one came forward claiming responsibility for the tanker lorry, a further enquiry was made and it was found that as per the invoice No.96159861 dated 12.12.2012, it ought to contain 20 KL of Naptha. It was revealed that the petroleum products loaded in the said tanker lorry was scheduled to have been transported to the Digboi Refinery, but instead was kept abandoned near the main gate of Guwahati Refinery.

4. Upon the tanker lorry being seized, it was detected that it actually contained Naptha in excess of 4.2 KL over the invoice stock of 20 KL. Further examination of the tanker lorry revealed that the tanker itself was tampered and remodelled to the extent that the dip pipes of the manhole were manipulated by putting in place an extra rod of about 36 cm to the bottom of the dip pipe, which resulted in preventing the actual reading of the product contained in the chambers of the tanker lorry being taken.

5. In the aforesaid circumstance, the FIR dated 16.01.2013 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, BIEO Police Station, Assam, which resulted in BIEO PS case No.01/2013 dated 10.01.2013 under Sections 120(B)/406/407/408/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. The said FIR ultimately resulted in the charge sheet No.09 dated 31.12.2013 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The charge sheet was also filed under Sections 120(B)/406/407/408/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, wherein the present two petitioners were also named as accused persons. After the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, it came to the notice of the respondent authorities that similar pilferage had taken place over a period of time from January, 2011 up to December, 2012. As the investigation arising out of the BIEO PS Case No.01/2013 took place only in respect of a single incident that was detected, the matter was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further investigation as regards the offence being committed over the period of time as indicated above.

6. The investigation made by the CBI resulted in FIR No. RC 0172014 A0004 dated 30.06.2014 in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam. The investigation resulting from the said FIR of the CBI culminated in the charge-sheet in Special Case No.05/2016 in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam under Sections 120(B)/420 of the India Peal Code read with Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said charge sheet also, the present petitioners wer