At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in R.C. Case No. 01 (A)/2013 (D) including the Order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Special Judge has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120 B read with 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The brief facts of the case is that an information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation that the Engineers as well as the Finance manager of the erstwhile Kustore Area, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad in criminal conspiracy with Kumbhnath Singh- proprietor of M/s. D. K. Singh, Dhanbad and his brother L.B. Singh did illegal acts with a view to cheat and defraud B.C.C.L., Dhanbad and 16 number of work orders were allotted in favour of M/s. D. K. Singh, Dhanbad for construction of P.C.C. road, drains, boundary and laying of pipelines etc. and ensured that without completion of the said work, the contractor raises bills which were paid to the contractor in connivance with the petitioner and the co-accused persons causing a wrongful loss to B.C.C.L. to the tune of Rs.1,23,13,354/- approximately and corresponding gain to the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It is further alleged that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons knowing pretty well that Sri Kumbhnath Singh is impersonating as Proprietor of M/s. D. K. Singh, fraudulently got 16 work orders and without executing the construction work, made payment by way of cheques on behalf of the B.C.C.L. to Kumbhnath Singh who was impersonating as Proprietor of M/s. D. K. Singh and the said cheques were encashed by Sri Kumbhnath Singh by impersonating as Proprietor of M/s. D. K. Singh in the account opened at Bank of India, Ena Branch, Dhanbad with the help of his brother L.B. Singh. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that during the period October, 2009 to December, 2011, he was responsible for not ensuring strict compliance of the laid down procedures of B.C.C.L./C.I.L in the Civil Contract work in B.C.C.L. It is also alleged that the petitioner was one of the members of the Tender Committee but he did not ensure that real proprietor or his authorized representative was attending the tender process and he did not ensure the rate analysis in order to justify the rate quoted by L-1 i.e. M/s. D. K. Singh and he also did not ascertain as to whether Budget Allocation for the said works have been taken from B.C.C.L. Headquarter or not. Further, he did not ascertain as to whether Financial Concurrence No. (F.C. No.) given by the Finance Department was genuine or not as the same was not given by the competent authority i.e. Area Finance Manager and still issued 16 work orders without getting budget allocation from B.C.C.L. Headquarter and on the basis of fictitious F.C. No. given by the Finance Manager and not by the Area finance Manager of the Kustore Area. He did not ensure the execution of the agreement against the said work orders and he did not issue reminder to the contractor for the completion of the said 16 civil works as per the terms and condition of the work order immediately after completion of two months and only in September, 2011, he issued letter to the said contractor for completing the work but by that time the payments were made to the said contractor against the said 16 works and he being the Head of Civil Engineering Department of the Area did not take action for cancellation of the said work orders due to non-execution of the same by the said contractor.

4. After completion of investigation of the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted charge-sheet inter alia finding that the petitioner along with the co-accus