MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Sec. 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 19/2007 directing framing of charges under Section 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of FIR as well as the challan papers, there is no evidence whatsoever to frame charges against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. The petitioner has only put his signatures on the final bill being the final authority which was submitted by the J.En as well as A.En and petitioner cannot be said to have misappropriated any money. It is further argued that it is mentioned in clause 7 of the contract that it is the higher authority which shall issue the certificate on completion of work. Further as per S.O. No. 54 dated 04.06.1963, the Executive Engineer has to check at least 10 percent by number of all first and final bills of contractors and those for work done departmentally paid during a year. So there was no direct role of the petitioner who was the Executive Engineer at that time to examine the day to day work executed by the contractor and if any excess payment was made to the contractor, the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer were responsible for the act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Sivaprakash vs. State of Kerala reported in 2016 Cri.L.R. 467 the ingredients which are required to prove the offence of Section 13(1)(c)(d) are that (i) the public servant has abused his position (ii) by abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Since these ingredients are not proved against the petitioner, therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 04.07.2015 & 30.07.2015 and argued that the police after thorough investigation submitted challan against the petitioner and the trial court after going through the entire record, has framed charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner being the final authority ought to have inspected the site regarding completion of work and also checked the bills before putting his signatures. As per S.O. No. 54 also, the petitioner being the Executive Engineer was required to follow the instructions given in the Standing order but the petitioner has not followed the instructions and therefore, the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

4. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of documents on record, it is evident that the petitioner being the final authority signed the bills without inspecting the site and without proper inquiry as to whether the contractor concerned has completed the work as per terms and conditions of the contract or not. The team which inspected the site found that the work done by the contractor was substandard and there was difference in the measurement book and the work actually done by the contractor. As per S.O. No. 54, following instructions have been issued to the Executive Engineer to check the measurement taken by his subordinate officers:-

(a) He should check at least 10 percent, by number of all final and first and final bills of contractors and those for work done departmentally paid during a year.

(b) The value of the bills checked in each month should be at least 10 per cent of the total value of such bills paid during the month.

(c) The me