The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for detailed consideration of points raised in a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the relevance of established decisions in similar cases.

Criminal revision case has been directed against the order dated 31.07.2014 passed, in M.P.No.196 of 2012, in Calendar Case No.11 of 2009, by the II Additional District Judge/Special Judge, CBI cases, Coimbatore.

2. The respondent herein has filed a final report under Sections 120-B r/w.420, 419, 468, 468 r/w.471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) r/w.13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as first accused. The final report filed on the side of the respondent has been taken on file, in Calendar Case No.11 2009. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.11 of 2009.

3. In the petition it is averred that as per first information report, various officials have been shown as accused and in fact, the petitioner has done his duty in the process in question at the fifth stage and further, served from 16.6.2003 to 17.6.2004 as Inspector of Customs at Coimbatore, Tirupur. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed so as to get the relief sought for therein.

4. On the side of the respondent, counter has been filed, wherein it is contended that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The Court below, after considering the divergent contentions raised on either side, has dismissed the petition by way of holding that a prima facie case is in existence so as to proceed further against the petitioner. The order of dismissal passed by the Court below is being challenged in the present criminal revision case.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner has raised the following points, so as to set aside the impugned order passed by the Court below:

(a) In the first information report, various officials have been arrayed as accused and they have not been shown as accused in the final report.

(b) In the annexure given on the side of the respondent, the petitioner has been shown in the fifth place and especially in the alleged process and for the reasons best known to the investigating officer, the petitioner has alone been arrayed as accused among officials.

(c) The petitioner has served as Inspector of Customs from 16.3.2003 to 17.4.2004 and the same has not at all been considered by the Court below.

(d) In the present petition, various points have been urged, but the Court below, without considering nor discussing those points, has simply arrived at a conclusion to the effect that prima facie materials are available so as to proceed further against the petitioner.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has contended that in Calender Case No.11 of 2009, the petitioner has been arrayed as the first accused. The petitioner and the remaining accused are facing charges under Sections 120- B r/w.420, 419, 468, 468 r/w.471 of IPC and also under Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further, some of the prosecution witnesses have clearly spoken about the role alleged to have been played by the petitioner and further due to misconduct/lapses on the part of the petitioner, a loss has occurred to a tune of Rs.2,31,53,444/- and the Court below, after considering the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences, has rightly found that prima facie materials are available so as to proceed against the petitioner and consequently, dismissed the petition and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Court below need not be set aside.

8. On the basis of the rival contentions put forth on either side, this Court has to find out as to whether the impugned order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct or the same needs interference.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has repeatedly contended that in the first infor