M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. M/s. Thisa India (P.) Ltd., M/s. Saraf Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s. Champdani Jute Co. Ltd. have filed the Crl. Rev. Nos. 170/96 and No. 98/96 and D.J. Wadhwa has filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. being Crl. M. (M.) No. 1365/97 against the orders dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi directing framing of charges under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against them. These petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the Cement Corporation of India used to invite tenders for the supply of gunny bags on competitive rates. On 29.7.1982, the Cement Corporation of India invited tenders for supply of gunny bags for the year 1983-84. A Tender Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the accused A.P. Maheshwari (the then C.M.D.) and Sarva Shri A.L. Kapur (Director Finance), P.K. Tikku (Director Operation), R.M. Maheshwari (Chief Manager, Finance), and the accused M.P. Gupta (the then Joint Senior Manager) were members of the said Committee. After processing the tenders submitted by various firms, the Tender Committee selected 10 firms for supply of gunny bags and supply orders were placed on the firms so selected under the signatures of the accused M.P. Gupta. On 16.1.1984, employees of the Jute Mills of West Bengal went on strike and the strike continued till 8.4.1984 as a result whereof the Rate Contract-Firms could not supply the gunny bags in accordance with the terms of the contract. As per prosecution case, on 24.10.1983 and afterwards the manufacturing units of the Cement Corporation of India intimated the accused M.P. Gupta, who was controlling purchases of gunny bags at the Corporate Office at New Delhi, about the proposed strike in the Jute Mills, but he deliberately avoided to take necessary steps to build up sufficient stock at the manufacturing units. He did not even ask the rate contract firms to expedite the supplies. Taking advantage of the situation created by the strike in the Jute Mills of West Bengal, the accused M.P. Gupta placed an ad-hoc order on the accused M/s. Saraf Agencies for supply of 80,500 gunny bags at an enhanced rate of Rs. 453.10 per 100 bags as against the agreed rate of Rs. 413.87 per 100 bags. The said firm, which had earlier expressed its inability to supply the gunny bags due to strike, supplied gunny bags at the enhanced rates, on 20.3.1984 and 22.3.1984. Thereafter, on 21.3.1984, the accused M.P. Gupta arrived at Calcutta and placed ad-hoc orders on the Firms M/s. Brijlal Shivnath (A-3), M/s. Champadani Jute Co. Ltd. (A-6) and M/s. Jute Textile Corporation (A-10)and M/s. Bishwanath Chaudhary (A-7) for supply of large quantity of gunny bags at an enhanced rate of Rs. 552.50 per 100 bags. In addition to this, the accused M.P. Gupta also placed ad-hoc supply orders for large quantity of gunny bags at the enhanced rates of Rs. 545, 546 and 520 per 100 bags. Overruling the objections raised by Shri P.K. Tikku, Director (Operations), the aforesaid purchases were approved by the accused A.P. Maheshwari. On these facts, it is alleged that during the period 1983-84, the accused A.P. Maheshwari and M.P. Gupta entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused persons, the object of which was to obtain pecuniary benefits by corrupt and illegal means and to cause wrongful loss to the Cement Corporation of India in pursuance of which they actually caused wrongful loss to the said Corporation to the tune of Rs. 46 lacs approximately. Since services of the accused A.P. Maheshwari were terminated w.e.f. 27.5.1986 and the accused M.P. Gupta was retired from service w.e.f.28.2.1987, they were prosecuted without obtaining the sanction under, the Prevention of Corruption Act. On challan being filed, the learned Special Judge directed framing of charges under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, they have come up before this Court.

3. The question is: whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the offences punishable under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners. It may be remembered at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing charge exists. State of Maharashtra and Others v.Som Nath Thapa and Others, JT 1996 (4) SC 615 [LQ/SC/1996/793] ; Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathiav. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, IT 1999 (5) 394=VI (1999) SLT 411=III(1999) CCR 173 (SC). It is axiomatic that the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charge. (Suptd. & Legal Remembrancer Legal Affairs v.Anil Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 52 [LQ/SC/1979/346] ). It has to be borne in mind that at this stage, detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided lest it may pre-judge or prejudice the case of either side. The learned Special Judge, after considering the matter in greater detail, concluded that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency make out a prima facie case under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 5(2) & 5(1)(d) against the petitioners. The case diary statements of S/Shri D.P. Verma, A.K. Verma, B.P. Banerjee, A. Dutt Gupta, J.K. Dutta and P.K. Tikku read along with the documents D-6, D-19, D-24 to D-41, D-47 to D-49, D-56, D-62, D-63, D-68 to D-74, D-80, D-81, D-88 to D-91, D-93, D-95, D-104, D-109, D-112, D-179, D-185, D-192, D-199 and D-200 clearly go to show that during the period 1983-84, the accused A.P. Maheshwari and M.P. Gupta entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons the object of which was to receive pecuniary benefits by corrupt or illegal means in pursuance of which the accused A.P. Maheshwari and M.P. Gupta, overruling the objections raised by Mr. P.K. Tikku and waiving the normal procedure, placed ad-hoc supply orders on the accused firms for supply of large quantity of gunny bags at exorbitant rates. The total pecuniary benefits obtained by the accused firms taken together comes to Rs. 45,82,429.00 approximately against the total purchase worth Rs. 3,79,77,370.84. In this way, the accused A.P. Maheshwari and M.P. Gupta also caused wrongful loss to the Cement Corporation of India to the tune of Rs. 46 lacs approximately. In this view of the matter, the learned Special Judge was perfectly justified in framing the impugned charges against the petitioners.

4. In the result, the revision petitions as well as the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29.11.1999.