Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Both the petitioners in these two revision petitions No. 55 and 62 of 2000, are facing sessions trial in case FIR No. 37 of 1994, Police Station, CBI, Chandigarh. In these revision petitions they have assailed the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Shimla, whereby charge has been framed against both of them under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the Act). Petitioner H.R. Bashal, in addition, has been charged with offence under Section 13(l)(d) of the Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner H.R. Bashal was posted as District Telecom Engineer, Shimla from December, 1985 to March, 1989. In the year 1988-89, the Telecommunication Research Centre (TRC), New Delhi, requested the Chief General Manager Telecom, Shimla to execute two projects in Himachal Pradesh for laying out Optical Fibre Cable. The said cable was to be laid between Central Telegraph Office, Shimla to Mashobra and it was to be provided by the Telecom Research Centre, New Delhi and the other stores were to be provided by Himachal Pradesh Circle of Telephones. Keeping in view the urgency of the project, the Chief General Manager Telecom, Shimla, called meetings in his office on 13.9.1988 and 15.9.1988 in which it was decided that 80mm medium class G.I. pipe on DGS & D rate contract will be procured by 25.9.1988 and the supply order will be placed by TDE, Shimla.

3. Petitioner H.R. Bashal, who was the then TDE, Shimla, placed four supply orders to M/s. Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited for supply of 5800 mtrs. 9500 mtrs., 800 mtrs. and 720 mtrs. of 80 mm medium class GI pipes, in response to which supplies were made by M/s. Jotindra Steel and Tubes Ltd. through its Commercial Manager petitioner O.P. Bhardwaj and payment of Rs. 28,30,209 was also made to the said company through petitioner O.P. Bhardwaj for which the bills were passed by petitioner H.R. Bashal.

4. The allegations against petitioner H.R. Bashal are that knowing fully well that G.I. Pipes being on DGS and D rate contract were to be purchased through DGS and D, he placed the supply orders himself on plain papers instead of prescribed format No. 131. He did not send the copies of the supply orders to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Office of Chief Controller of Accounts, New Delhi and Director of Inspection, N.I. Circle, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi, as required under para 2 of DGS and D rate contract. Before accepting the supply of G.I. Pipes, he never got it inspected from the Inspecting Authority as per para 9 of the DGS and D rate contract. Further, petitioner H.R. Bashal without waiting for the Covering Sanction from the competent authority, made the payment to M/s. Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited despite the objection raised by the then Chief Accounts Officer, office of the Chief General Manager Telecom, Shimla, that the bills were beyond his financial powers.

5. According to the prosecution, petitioner H.R. Bashal, has committed the above stated irregularities to defraud the Telecommunication Department by entering into criminal conspiracy with petitioner O.P. Bhardwaj, who made supplies of G.I. pipes without receiving the orders on prescribed DGS and D formats and without getting it inspected from the competent authority. From these facts on record, the prosecution has tried to make outj a case that petitioner H.R. Bashal abusing his official position, caused undue pecuniary advantage to himself and petitioner O.P. Bhardwaj, who was the Commercial Manager of M/s. Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited at the relevant time.

6. In order to find out whether prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners to frame charge against them, this Court is not supposed to appreciate and weigh the material on record. By now, it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is to find out whether, taking the case of the prosecution at its face value, ingredients of the offence