The court's decision emphasized that a charge can be framed if the accused might have committed the offence, and the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing the charge.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) (CBI)—6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 02/15 arising out of RC No. AC1/2012/A0011/CBI/New Delhi whereby the Court below has refused to discharge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120B read with Section 8 of the P.C. Act and Sections 420 and 471 of the IPC and has framed charges under the aforesaid sections against him.

2. A case was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 20.07.2012 made by Sh. Ajay Maken, the then State Minister (Independent charge) Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India alleging that a fake letter on his letter head has been unauthorizedly used for some pecuniary advantage. Sh. Maken had come to know about the aforesaid letter from a news item published in the Indian Express on 15.07.2012 under the title “Among Verma Papers, an Unsigned Maken Letter to P.M”. A case was, thereafter, registered against Sh. Abhishek Verma; unknown officials of M/s. ZET Telecom India Pvt. Ltd, unknown officials of M/s. Ganton Ltd, USA and its subsidiary company M/s. Ganton India Pvt. Ltd and other unknown persons under Section 469 IPC read with Section 8 of the P.C. Act and Section 66A(b)(c) of the IT Act, 2000.

3. During the investigation of the aforesaid case, it came to light that Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigner Division) had issued guidelines for grant of extension of Visas to foreign nationals which were directed to all States and UT Administration for grant of extension of Visas to foreign nationals. Pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, HO-cum-Foreigner Registration Officer, Gurugram, Haryana issued an order dated 27.10.2009 under the signature of the competent authority that all foreign nationals who were in India on business Visa in connection with execution of their projects/contracts ought to leave the country on expiry of their existing Visas or by 31.10.2009, whichever was earlier. This order could have adversely affected the staff of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. During the investigations, it was revealed that the then CEO of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd had approached Mr. D.K. Ghosh, the then CMD of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd, India for finding out some way to get the Visa of the employees of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd extended. Since Mr. D.K. Ghosh, referred to above, was known to co accused Sh. Abhishek Verma who was famous for his contacts in Government of India, he contacted Sh. Abhishek Verma on 28.10.2009 for help. They (Mr. D.K. Ghosh and Sh. Abhishek Verma) met in Hotel Radisson, Delhi on 29.10.2009. In presence of Mr. D.K. Ghosh, Sh. Abhishek Verma had a talk on telephone with someone who was explained about the Visa problem. Thereafter, Sh. Abhishek Verma asked Mr. D.K. Ghosh to come to the residence of the petitioner on 30.10.2009. During the meeting at Radisson Hotel, Sh. Abhishek Verma had made it known to Mr. D.K. Ghosh that the help which would be given, would cost money and that a formal request also ought to be made to the Union Home Minister and the then State Home Minister regarding such Visa problem. This fact was communicated by Mr. D.K. Ghosh to the CEO of ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd.

4. With respect to the petitioner, investigations revealed that he used a mobile telephone No.9899485136 and was in contact with Sh.Abhishek Verma between 28.10.2009 to 03.11.2009. On 30.10.2009, Sh. Abhishek Verma and Mr. D.K. Ghosh had gone to the residence of the petitioner where Mr. D.K. Ghosh is said to have explained about the Visa problem to the petitioner. The petitioner is then said to have made a telephone call from his landline to somebody and also assured Mr. D.K. Ghosh that he shall fully cooperate in the matter. That day also, Sh. Abhishek Verma had reminded Mr. D.K. Ghosh that for this political intervention and help, money will have to be paid. However, no commitment was made by