The main legal point established is that the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, and the existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. Perused the Records. The petitioner assails the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 36 of 2010 in rejecting the application filed by him u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred as the 'Code' for brevity, to discharge him from the charges u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred as the 'Act'.

2. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points; firstly it is submitted that the petitioner not being a public servant, as defined u/s 2 of the Act, cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act; secondly, it is contended that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that there has been any conspiracy between the petitioner and the other two accused persons to commit any crime as there is no written document to that effect nor, it is submitted that, the prosecution alleged that there is oral evidence to that effect.

3. Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. relies upon the reported case of Vivek Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, contending that the petitioner can be charged for the aforesaid offences along with the co-accused persons, who are public servants.

4. The prosecution case, in brief is that the present petitioner as Proprietor of Utkal Fabrication and Engineering works, Rourkela applied for certain loan and loan of Rs. 10 lakh was sanctioned under Credit Guarantee Fund for small scale industries. It is further alleged by the prosecution that no firm in the name and style of Utkal Fabrication and Engineering Works in shed Nos. 4 and 5, Nayabazar, Rourkela was in existence. During investigation, it came to light that the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with Chaitanaya Badi, the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Bishra Road Branch, Rourkela and Dipankar Mishra, the then officer of Canara Bank of said branch to commit cheating and fraud to misappropriate public money. In pursuance thereto, the Branch Manager sanctioned the loan of Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of the present petitioner falsely certifying his credit worthiness. The amount was sanctioned in favour of the said non-existence firm. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged and Investigating machinery was set into motion. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the then Branch Manager and the then Officer of Canara Bank, Bishra Road Branch, Rourkela along with the petitioner. It is not disputed that the present petitioner is not a public servant. So now the question arises, whether the present petitioner can be tried along with other two accused persons by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act and whether there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the present petitioner.

5. Section 3 of the Act provides power of the Central Government or the State Government to appoint Special Judges to try any offence punishable under the Act and any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a). Section 4 of the Act provides for the cases triable by the Special Judges. Sub-section (1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by Special Judges only. Sub-section (2) provides that every offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one o