The trial court is required to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and must evaluate the materials produced by the prosecution for the limited purpose of finding out whether the facts emerging from such materials would constitute the offences alleged against the accused.

ORDER :

The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case C.C.No.10/2011 pending in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners in the above case are punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The first accused was the Chief Engineer (Constructions) in the Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram during the period 2004-2006. He was responsible for planning and execution of civil projects, finalisation of alignments, approval of the working plan and also for calling tenders and awarding them. It is alleged that the first accused was competent to accept tenders for an amount varying between forty lakhs to five crores rupees.

4. The second accused was a Civil Contractor. He was the person who was awarded the execution of earth work in connection with the gauge conversion of railway line between Quilon and Tenkasi.

5. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:

The first and the second accused entered into a criminal conspiracy in respect of awarding the earth work mentioned earlier. Pursuant to such conspiracy, the first accused, without considering the recommendations made by the Tender Committee, manipulated the tender proceedings and awarded the earth work mentioned above in favour of the second accused on a very high rate. Subsequently, the second accused could not complete the work within the time stipulated and the remaining work had to be retendered and awarded to another person. Consequently, the Indian Railways incurred a loss of Rs.91,89,483/-.

6. The first and the second accused filed separate applications for discharge as Crl.M.P.Nos.21/2011 and 19/2014 in the trial court under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').

7. As per the order dated 28.11.2017, the trial court dismissed the aforesaid applications and found that charge has to be framed against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them.

8. The first and the second accused have filed this revision petition challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order passed by the trial court.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel who appeared for the CBI.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to various documents produced by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet and contended that a perusal of those documents would show that the prosecution has not produced any materials to prove the offences alleged against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that, the impugned order was passed by the trial court without application of mind to the allegations raised against the petitioners and the documents produced by the prosecution and also that the trial court did not consider, whether on the basis of the materials produced by the prosecution, a prima facie case against the petitioners is made out or not.

11. Learned counsel who appeared for the CBI also invited the attention of this Court to various documents produced by the prosecution and contended that the first petitioner intentionally and dishonestly acted in violation of the recommendations made by the Tender Committee and awarded the work to the second accused pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by them and thereby, the accused obtained pecuniary advantage.

12. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court would show that it was passed without due application of mind to the materials produced by the prosecution. The trial court did not make any attempt to evaluate the materials produced by the prosecution to ascertain whether such materials were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners.

13. The trial court has, in the impugned order, at first referred to the offences alleged against the accused in the case and the