At the stage of framing charges, the court should not weigh the evidence and documents requisitioning is not necessary before framing the charge.

( 1 ) BATCH of criminal revisions being interconnected were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the distinguishing facts in the cases where the same is necessary.

( 2 ) FIRST I shall deal with the facts in Criminal Revision No. 611/2001. In this petition the petitioner, M. Saran, has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 11-4-2001 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 5/2000. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is an accused in Special Case No. 5/2000. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that M/s. Sunita Textiles Private Ltd. is situated at Bapi, in the State of Gujarat and coal was issued to the aforesaid company by South Eastern Coal fields Limited (in short 'the SECL') for the year 1991 by rail movement based on the sponsorship issued by the Indian Cotton Mill Federation, Bombay. The accused Jagdish Prasad has been working as the Managing Director and the authorised representative of M/s. Sunita Textiles Pvt. Ltd. During the month of March and April 1991 due to short fall the coal could not be received by M/s. Sunita Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

( 3 ) AS per prosecution case the accused D. Sinha and M. Vidyarthi were posted as Sales Officers in the SECL Headquarter Bilaspur and there duty was to issue Road Release Orders (for brevity 'the RROs' ). The accused N. C. Vidyarthi was posted as Senior Sales Officer in SECL, J and K Area respectively and his duty was to issue delivery orders. Accused R. C. Agrawal was the Sub Area Manager Incharge of Bhadra Colliery and his duty was to supply the coal to the party. Accused Mohan Shukla and D. P. Rai were trader and advocate respectively at Katni.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and agreed to cheat the SECL by lifting the coal through RROs issued against the rail short fall and to sell the coal in the blackmarket to get wrongful gain. In pursuance of the said conspiracy the accused Jagdish Prasad Badgamia sent an application in May, 1991 to SECL for issuance of RROs for coal regarding the month of March and April, 1991. The RROs were prepared and signed by the accused D. Sinha and M. Saran by showing bogus despatch of these RROs the company at Bati. They were not actually sent to the company but diverted to unidentified and unauthorised persons to lift the coal with the help of other co-accused and sold in the blackmarket. Other accused persons, namely N. C. Vidyarthi and R. C. Agrawal, issued delivery orders and the coal without verifying the persons. The accused late P. K. Vidyarthi, Mohan Shukla and D. P. Rai prepared the demand draft and despatched coal in the name of some fictitious persons/firms and also played a major role in pursuance of the agreement of criminal conspiracy.

( 5 ) WHEN the matter came before the learned special Judge for the purpose of framing charge, it was contended that the case is totally based on surmises and conjectures and there is no material on record which could be treated as legal evidence and hence, the accused persons deserved to be discharged.

( 6 ) COMBATTING the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused, the Public Prosecutor contended before the learned Special Judge that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the accused persons in respect of the offences punishable under S. 120-B read with S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 13 (1) (d) read with S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act' ). Before the learned trial Judge on behalf of the accused persons, D. Sinha and M. Saran it was contended that they only issued RROs and thus, they have only done what was required to be done by them. There was a separate branch, namely, Despatch Section, which was responsible for the despatch of RROs to the concerned party and thus these two accused cannot be prima facie held responsi