The main legal point established in the judgment is that strong suspicion, supported by admissible material, is necessary to frame charges, and the court must examine the admissibility of incriminating material even at the stage of deciding a discharge application.

JUDGMENT

ROHIT B.DEO,J. - Heard Mr. R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Pathan, the learned APP for non- applicant / State.

2. The petitioner, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused, is arraigned as accused 5 in the Final Report submitted in Crime 134/2015, for offence punishable under sections 370, 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 39, 45 and 46 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of report dated 2.12.2015 lodged by Santosh Gawali with the Police Station, Dabki Road, Akola. The gist of the report is that informant obtained handloan of Rs. 20,000/- from accused Anand Jadhav. Inability to pay the principal and interest resulted in default. Accused Anand Jadhav resorted to threats and pressure to force the informant to repay the loan. Accused Anand Jadhav suggested that the informant sell his kidney. The informant consented since he was persistently harassed to repay the loan. The informant alleges that he met accused Devendra Shirsat alongwith accused Anand Jadhav and accused Shivaji Koli was contacted. Accused Devendra Shirsat took the informant to a Nagpur hospital. Accused Devendra Shirsat and Shivaji Koli then met one Devendra Verma and it was agreed that Rs. 4 lacs shall be paid to the informant. Ultimately, the accused Devendra Shirsat took the informant to Mumbai, and then alongwith accused Shivaji Koli they went to Sri Lanka alongwith Devendra Verma and his wife. One kidney was removed and Devendra Shirsat was the beneficiary of the implant. Devendra Shirsat informed that the balance amount of RS. 1 lac shall be paid to the informant after receiving the same from accused Shivaji Koli. The said amount was not paid and the informant alleged that he was cheated since he received only Rs. 3 lacs.

4. Perusal of the chargesheet and the accompanying material reveals that the only role which is attributed to the applicant accused is that co-accused Raghvendra Verma disclosed that he summoned his friend Ashish Vijaykumar Bhabda r/o. Ahmadnagar to Nagpur and asked him to pay Rs. 7 lacs to accused Shivaji Koli. Aashish Bhabada in turn asked his acquaintance present applicant Shivaji Patil to pay the said amount of Rs. 7 lacs to Shivaji Koli and accordingly the applicant did pay the amount of Rs. 7 lacs which was kept with him by Aashish Bhabade to accused Shivaji Koli.

5. Mr. R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for applicant - Shivaji Patil would submit that even if the version of the prosecution is accepted at face value, no case is made out to proceed against the applicant accused. The only role attributed is that Aashish Bhabada was asked to pay Rs. 7 lacs to accused Shivaji Koli and instead making the payment himself, he kept the amount with the applicant accused and asked him to pay the amount to accused Shivaji Koli, which was duly done.

6. Mr. R.M. Daga would then submit, that apart from the fact that the role attributed does not make out any offence, the material pressed in service in support of the allegation, irrelevant and innocuous as the allegation is, is not admissible.

7. In view of the submission canvased by Mr. R.M. Daga, I called upon the learned APP Mr. M.K. Pathan to invite my attention to the alleged incriminatory material in the Final Report or the documents filed alongwith the Final Report. Mr. M.K. Pathan invites my attention to a document styled as "Identification Panchanama" dated 13.12.2015. The said document purports to be a memorandum under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The recital in the Identification Panchanama is that accused Shivaji Koli disclosed that he received Rs. 7 lacs from co-accused Raghvendra Verma through the applicant accused Shivaji Patil. The fact discovered, according to the prosecution is the location of the business establishment of the applicant and the identification of the applicant as the person, who delivered the amount of Rs. 7 lacs to accused