TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... picion 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was registered in the name of wife of Superintendent-Lallan) and in the presence of two independent witnesses, the aforesaid bribe amount was recovered. 3. Upon registration of the case, during the course of investigation, recording of 96 intercepted phone calls containing conversations between the accused persons relating to this case was collected by Special Unit of CBI and the said conversations revealed that Hemant Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as A3 in the charge-sheet) was in regular touch with petitioner (referred to as A-1) and Superintendent-Lallan (referred to as A-2) was chosen for illegal raid conducted on 28th December, 2011 on the godown of Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as A-4 and A-5 res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 SC 3820; State of Bihar v. Raj Kumar Mahto - 2006 Crl.L.J. 4666; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana - 2003 Crl.LJ. 3552; Mohan Singh Patel Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2001 (4) Crimes 357; Kirtan Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2005 Crl.L.J. 69; Jaddoo Singh Anr. v. Smt. Malti Devi Anr. - AIR 1983 Allahabad 87; Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 2004 SC 2865; Vijender v. State of Delhi - 1997 SCC (Cri) 857 and Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) - AIR 1979 SC 1408. 6. During the course of hearing, it emerged that the following circumstances are relied upon by prosecution to connect petitioner with the offences in question :- (a) Visit of Hemant Gandhi (A-3) to the office of petitioner on 27th December, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was pointed out that there is no material on record to suggest that illegal raid in question was conducted under the directions and protection of petitioner. 9. It was vehemently asserted by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that on the basis of material on record, it cannot be prima facie inferred that raid in question was conducted in conspiracy with petitioner and in fact, call No. 51 relied upon by prosecution, refers to earlier raid which was successful, and six zero referred to in the said call was the duty/penalty leviable and it cannot be co-related to the raid in question, which according to prosecution was illegal and without any authorization from petitioner. 10. It was emphatically pointed out by learned Senior Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 SCC 623 Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala - AIR 2001 SC 3488 to support the impugned order and to contend that there is strong suspicion about involvement of petitioner in the commission of offences in question. To further contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, it was submitted by learned Standing Counsel for respondent-CBI that there cannot be direct evidence of conspiracy and the call details relied upon by respondent are admissible and thus, sufficient to put petitioner on trial with his co-accused. 13. After having heard both the sides and on careful perusal of the impugned order, charge-sheet filed and the decisions cited, it emerges that Trial Court in the impugned order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust exist some material therefore to justify framing of charge. In Amit Kapoor (supra), Apex Court has clarified that the suspicion ought to be strong enough to justify framing of charges. 15. No doubt final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge, but when two views are possible, on the basis of material on record, then Trial Court is empowered to discharge the accused provided one of the two views, gives rise to grave suspicion regarding complicity of accused in the commission of the offence. It has been so ruled by Apex Court in its recent decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narain Rao (supra). The ratio of the decisions relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
