IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47538 of 2007 MANDURESHWAR BHAGAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI. ----------- 14/ 10/2/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., North Bihar, Patna in Special Case No.6/05 refusing to discharge the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 109, 120B and 477A of I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered as R.C. Case No.8(A)/1999, Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court that charge-sheet had been submitted against the petitioner without any materials in support thereof to subject him to the rigours of a trial. Merely because the co-accused, who is alleged to have obtained a fake employment, was his brother-in- law, does not suffice for the purpose of subjecting him to trial. Additionally, the petitioner is neither a member of the appointment committee, nor he had any role to play in the appointment process. Mere statement of a 2 co-accused under Section-164 Cr.P.C. cannot be substantive material to subject him to the rigours of trial. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., supporting the impugned order, submitted that during the investigation co-accused in his statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. had specifically made statements in support of the conspiracy of which the petitioner was also a part in securing the fake appointments, contrary to law. The petitioner was an assistant teacher. The other co-accused obtained appointment as a teacher on the basis of a fake caste certificate. In an application under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, this Court is not required to go into a meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation and of the weight of the materials to decide whether it was sufficient to lead to a conviction or not. All that the Court is required to see is if there was prima facie material fit to go to trial. What may be the outcome of the trial is of no concern at this stage. Statements under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. are not considered substantive material for the purpose of trial and have to be corroborated or contradicted during the trial, but the value of a statement under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. to make out a prima facie case to subject one to 3 a trial is an entirely different matter. Whether statement under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. may or may not be corroborated is not an aspect to be considered at this stage. The court below in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order has referred adequately to the materials during investigation of the acts done by the petitioner in conspiracy. Co-accused Ravi Das in his statement under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. on record and perused by this Court has made adequate correlation to the petitioner on the aspect of conspiracy. The petitioner is a named accused in the F.I.R. To this Court those are materials sufficient prima facie to go to trial. This Court, therefore, finds no illegality in the impugned order. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)