M V D PRASAD Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in Criminal revision No. 139 of 2006 is an accused in t. R. No. 4 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , bhubaneswar. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 23-12-2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. The petitioner in CRLMC No. 232 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 5 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, cbi, Bhubaneswar. He has filed this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 14-10-2004 passed in the aforesaid case framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 12 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. The petitioner in CRLMC No. 233 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 12 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Special judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He was filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 14-10-2004 passed in the aforesaid case framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 16 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 13-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. The petitioners in CRLMC No. 254 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 18 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 14-10-2004 passed in the aforesaid case framing charge for commission of offences under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 19 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2006 are the accused persons in T. R. No. 23 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. They have filed this revision challenging the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting their application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge them. The petitioner in CRLMC No. 255 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 25 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, c. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He has filed this petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 24-12-2004 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting the petition filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2006 is an accused in T. R. No. 26 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar. He has filed this revision challenging the order dated 14-12-2005 passed in the aforesaid case rejecting his application filed under Section 227, Cr. P. C. to discharge him.

(2.) ALL the above cases have been tagged together since the allegations against all these accused persons are almost similar and different cases have been instituted because of different transactions. Therefore, on the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, all the cases were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution is that a large scale conspiracy was unearthed in the rourkela Steel Plant and in course of investigation it was found that though no work order had been issued, bills were processed and payments were made and the Rourkela steel Plant was cheated to the tune of crores. The case of the CBI is that during the said period some officials of Rourkela Steel Plant, who are accused persons in all these cases entered into a criminal conspiracy with m/s. New Tech Enterprises and cheated the rourkela Steel Plant by issuing several work orders pursuant to the said conspiracy and even though no work has been executed pursuant to the said work order, bills were processed and payments were made to the tune of crores. As it appears charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons in all the cases for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the petitioners, who are officials of the rourkela Steel Plant had filed applications for being discharged in their respective cases indicating the role played by them and submitted that they are in no way involved in commission of the alleged offences. The learned Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar considering the role played by each of the officials and outsiders who have been benefited out of the transactions rejected the petitions filed by them under Section 227, cr. P. C. on the ground that prima facie materials are available to disclose a case of conspiracy and cheating against all the accused persons and on the basis of the materials available framed charge for commission of the offences as aforesaid.