IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29680 of 2010 GYANENDRA PANDEY, S/o Late Hardeo Pandey, R/o Village-Badheya, P.S.- Mirganj, District-Gopalganj. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH C.B.I. PATNA with Cr.Misc. No.29772 of 2010 MAHESH SINGH, S/o Late Ram Lal Singh, R/o Village-Rampur Kala Police Station, Phulwaria, District-Gopalganj. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH C.B.I. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee, Adv. For the Vigilance : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Adv. ------------- 02. 07.02.2011 The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. North Bihar, Patna rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to be discharged in Special Case No. 8 of 1997 instituted for offence under Sections 120B, 407, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case is that the Road Construction Department issued supply orders for supply of bitumen and thereafter the officials of the department without having received the same issued receipts. The petitioners happen to be the Junior Engineer of the Road Construction Department and allegation against them was that on 20.02.1994 and 14.03.1995 respectively the petitioners showed a receipt of 20.18 Metric Tonnes and 13.20 Metric Tonnes of bitumen. The falsity of the receipt 2 was gaudged by the fact that the tank lorries which are said to have supplied bitumen on the said dates were found at Haldia on the very next day having load for some other destination. The petitioners contend that in the charge-sheet it has been mentioned that only 17.74 Metric Tonnes was said to have been misappropriated by the officials and the RCD with regard to Supply Order No. 6946 (E) dated 16.11.1993 and, therefore, to hold the petitioners responsible for non-supply to the extent of 20.18 and 13.20 Metric Tonnes is unjustified. The further submission is that subsequently all the documents with regard to the carriage of the bitumen i.e. weigh certificate and such entries in other documents falsified the allegations made by the Vigilance. In my view, these are arguments which could only be appreciated at the stage of trial and a mini trial can not be held at the stage of framing of charge. In view of such, the application is dismissed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)