Important Point—It is not post occurrence conversation or acts that are admissible but for acts prior to occurrence that is material to show so called conspiracy or privy.

1. The revision petitioner is the accused No.2(for short, ‘A.2) in C.C.No.7 of 2011 among the two accused. The crime registered was for the offences punishable u/sec.120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short, ‘the Act’). The Inspector of Police, C.B.I. Visakhapatnam, after investigation filed chargesheet and the learned Special Judge taken cognizance for the offences supra. It is at the post-cognizance stage and before hearing on charges, an application in Crl.M.P.No.621 of 2013 was filed u/sec.239 CrPC, by the A.2-the petitioner herein seeking to discharge him from the cognizance taken for the offences supra. It is after contest, since ended in dismissal by order, dt.18.07.2014 he maintained the present revision.

2. The contentions in the grounds of revision vis-à-vis the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.2 are that the learned trial Judge did not decide the question of law raised by the petitioner that except the alleged and inadmissible telephonic conversation, there is no other material proposed by the C.B.I. as the prosecution agency to sustain the accusation against him to rope as A.2 and the telephonic conversation allegedly recorded by tapping phone of the petitioner is inadmissible in evidence for original not produced and there is no certificate for secondary evidence apart from the expert opinion of the CFSL to which the so called conversation sent stated not possible to identify the voice and even the opinion not placed before obtaining the sanction and the sanction also thereby vitiated for not given after considering entire material and the trial Judge must have discharged him from the accusation with no basis for all the above.

3. Whereas, it is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases that the impugned order of the lower Court no way requires interference for framing of charge or discharge concerned it is only on the face value of accusation from the material placed on record by prosecution and no searching enquiry is contemplated at this stage and at the instance of accused and it is premature as to the evidence is ultimately admissible or not and the case be ended in conviction or not and thereby sought for dismissal of the revision.

4 (a). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the following expressions in K.L.D. Nagasree vs Government Of India (2007(1) ALD 553) particularly paras-14 to 17 placed reliance on People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 568), Rajesh Gupta Vs. State through CBI Judgment of the Delhi High Court Single Jude in Crl.A.No.89 of 2009, dt. 25.03.2014 relying and referring to the expressions of the Apex Court in Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Surinder Kaur (1982(2) SCC 258) and Anvar PV Vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473) particularly on para-24, State of T.N. Vs. M.M. Rajendran (1998 9 SCC 268) and single Judge expression in Periyasamy Vs. Inspector of Vigilance (1994 Crl.L.J.753 Madras), and Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (2010 SCC 450) that is referred in para 69 sub-para 8 of S.K. Saini and another Vs. C.B.I. in Crl.A.No.159 of 2005 dated 19.08.2015 by learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court.

4 (b). The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. placed reliance on three expressions viz; R.M. Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157), Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh (AIR 1986 SC 3)and Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013 10 SCC 591).

5. Heard both sides and perused the expressions supra and entire material on record.

6. The revision lis is outcome against the impugned order of the learned special Judge in dismissal of the discharge application of the petitioner-A.2. Though the scope of revision is limited, apart from maintainability is not in dispute, as held in the latest expression of the three judge Bench of the Apex Court in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2016 SC 4245) this Court got power