Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 973 - HC - Indian LawsConspiracy under Section 120B of IPC - Conviction under Sections 7 & 12 of The Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that:- The need for independent application of mind has been stressed upon by Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar (2010 (9) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). In Prafulla Kumar (1978 (11) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT), relied upon by respondent, Apex Court has ruled that excepting the cases of grave suspicion, which the accused is unable to explain, Trial Court is empowered to discharge the accused. In Soma Chakravarty (2007 (5) TMI 590 - SUPREME COURT), Apex Court has reiterated that suspicion alone cannot be the basis for framing of charge and there must exist some material therefore to justify framing of charge. In Amit Kapoor (2014 (1) TMI 1042 - Supreme Court Of India), Apex Court has clarified that the suspicion ought to be strong enough to justify framing of charges. During the course of hearing, it was not shown by respondent’s counsel as to how call No. 48 can be reasonably explained. As call No. 48 is prior in time, so first prosecution has to explain this call and then only, petitioner can be called upon to give a reasonable explanation regarding subsequent call No. 51. Since the so-called incriminating call No. 51 stands completely demolished by call No. 48, therefore, it cannot be prima facie said that there is grave suspicion about involvement of petitioner in the commission of offences in question - Viewed from any angle, prima facie case is not made out against petitioner. Thus, impugned order qua petitioner is rendered unsustainable and is quashed - Decided in favour of appellant.
|