IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate the material on record to determine whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out.

ORDER :

The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the order dated 07.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No. 442/2022 in C.C.No.49/2016 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner and the other accused face charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C. Act'), 1988 and Sections 406, 408,409, 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution allegations, as extracted from the impugned order, are as follows:

“That the A1 being the Secretary, A2 being the President, A3 to A8 being the Director Board members and A9 being the Chief promoter and member of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Integrated Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. No. S.IND (T) 847, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram, in their capacity as public servants abused their position and colluded each other and hatched a criminal conspiracy with an intention to misappropriate the Government funds and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy had made false entries in the Membership Register to show that the Society has sufficient number of members and with other false supporting documents, prepared a Project Report containing misrepresented facts and submitted an application for availing loan from the National Co-operative Development Corporation (NCDC) and thereby availed a loan of Rs 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) as Margin Money Assistance, for the development of Silk handloom industry, during the period from 6-10-2009 to 11-03-2010 and to achieve the ends of the said criminal conspiracy, A10 being the then Additional Secretary, Industries (C) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Tvpm joined A1 to A9 in the criminal conspiracy and A10 abused his official position by issuing a favourable order come out of public interest for the encashment of 3 instalment of margin money assistance of Rs.1,75,20,000/-to the society by corrupt and illegal means ignoring the feasible recommendation of the Handloom Director and that of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Typm that the society was only eligible for Rs.11,22,754/-.

After receiving the entire amount, A1 to A9 with the knowledge of A10 made falsification of accounts in the registers of the society by entering false entries in the Membership Register, Invoice Register, Minutes Books, Yarn Advance Register, Day Book etc and made some forged documents purporting to show that purchase of raw materials and payments in the names of various firms were effected utilizing the funds thus provided and thereby misappropriated an amounts of Rs.1,15,45,612/-out of Rs. 2 Crores availed from NCDC as margin money assistance and thereby obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves and caused corresponding loss to the Government and thereby committed the above said offences.”

3. The petitioner and the other accused appeared in response to the summons.

4. The petitioner, who is accused No.9 and accused No.10, filed applications seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the prosecution materials do not reveal the offences alleged. The learned Special Judge after adjudicating the applications, discharged accused No.10, and dismissed the application seeking discharge filed by the petitioner as per the impugned order.

5. The relevant portion of the order impugned is extracted below :

“9. The contentions of the petitioner is that he had no role in day to day functions of the society, that he had acted as a promoter of the society prior to its incorporation, that there is no documentary evidence or statement of the witnesses to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner.

10. Even going by the charge sheet, the petitioner was not holding any official position in the society. But it is alleged that he was the Chief Promoter and member of the society. This fact is not denied. The petitioner is right in his c