JUDGMENT :

Applicants-Om Prakash Jaiswal and M/s Shankar Cable Industries through its Proprietor Om Prakash Jaiswal has moved application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8150 of 2019 and revisionist Satyendra Narayan Soni has preferred Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2019 with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption C.B.I., (West), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 400 / 2016, pertaining to FIR No. R.C. 0062014 A000027 dated 29.8.2014, Case No.1/2016, under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988, whereby the application for discharge of the applicants and revisionist has been rejected by the Special Judge by passing common order dated 27.09.2019, as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the instant case .

2. As the aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8150 of 2019 and Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2019 have been preferred against the same order dated 27.9.2019 passed by the Special Judge Anti corruption C.B.I., whereby the discharge application of the applicants no.1 and 2 of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8150 of 2019 and revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2019 have been rejected by passing common order dated 27.9.2019, for convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, law and discussion both cases i.e. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8150 of 2019 and Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2019 are being disposed of by passing this common order.

3. In the judgment, now onwards applicants/ petitioners of 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8150 of 2019 will be called applicants and revisionist of Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2019 will be called as revisionist.

4. Heard Shri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8150 of 2019 and Shri Purnendu Chakarvarty in Crl. Revision No. 1593 of 2019 and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for C.B.I. as well as perused the record.

5. Learned Senior advocate submits that mere availability of some other remedy in the Code of Criminal Procedure will not circumcise the powers of this Court in entertaining an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the abuse of the process of the Court is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied on Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants as well as Shri Purnendu Chakarvarty, learned counsel for the revisionist, while referring to the order dated 27.9.2019 passed by the Special Judge submits that the special court has not considered the submissions and grounds taken in discharge application by the applicants and revisionist in right perspective and without adverting to the material and evidence available on record has rejected the discharge application of the applicants and revisionist.

7. It is also submitted by them that the applicants in respect of a purchase order had supplied 65 Drums of 2 Core PVC Insulated Railway Signaling power cable and the supply was made only after the inspection of officer of RDSO, Lucknow.

8. It is further submitted by Shri Jyotindra Mishra Ld. Senior Advocate and Shri Purenendu Chakarvarty that before the supply was made the cables were thoroughly inspected and after receiving the inspection certificate were dispatched on 18.1.2013 and 19.1.2013 and on 15.10.2013 a team of CBI Officers, Railway Vigilance and RDSO Officials alleged to have conducted a search operation and allegedly collected the samples of some cables supplied by the applicants, and other firm in their absence and got them tested in the lab of RDSO, Lucknow, which were allegedly failed in some parameters.

9. Highlighting the above factual matrix it is vehemently submitted by them that there are certain guidelines issued in the manual of signal engineering which provides the terms of storage and transpo