The main legal point established in the judgment is that charge can only be framed based on the material before the court, and the use of confessional statements and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act must be carefully considered.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order on charge dated 6th May, 2016 and framing of charge dated 14th May, 2016 by the learned Special Judge-03 (PC Act), CBI, Patiala House Courts against the petitioner under Section 109 Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short PC Act).

2. It may be noted at the outset that the CBI registered an FIR no. 4/2008 against Arvind Kumar, Chief Engineer, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act read with Section 109 IPC, being a public servant, found to be in possession of assets beyond the disclosed source of income. The FIR was also filed against his wife and several others, of whom the petitioner is one.

3. According to Mr. R.K. Handoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. However, when the chargesheet was filed against Arvind Kumar and his wife Smt. Indu Kumar and others, the petitioner was also arraigned as an accused namely accused No.8. Learned counsel submitted that the Special Judge took cognizance and summoned all the accused including the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in framing charge against the petitioner, in the absence of any evidence against him raising grave suspicion of his having conspired in the commission of the offence by the public servant.

4. The case alleged against the petitioner was that he being a Chartered Accountant had furnished names of his clients to the accused No.2 to aid her in converting black money into white, by receiving cash from her and issuing cheques in return. These allegations were based on three statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. given by Pramod Kumar Basotia, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Govind Saini. However, these persons have been named as accused in the chargesheet being A-3, A-4 and A-10 respectively and cognizance has been taken against them. Thus, relying on the judgment in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 337, it was submitted that the confessional statement of an accused could not be used against the petitioner, who was a co-accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that 44 witnesses out of a total of 120 have been examined so far, yet nothing inculpatory has come against the petitioner. It was also submitted that at no point of time had the petitioner held any money on behalf of the public servant. The money belonged to A-2, Smt. Indu Kumar and he was only the Chartered Accountant of her company, M/s A.I. Developers and thus had nothing to do with the public servant. 6. Furthermore, the three accused persons had retracted their so-called confessions recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which rendered these statements to be nothing more than statements of co-accused upon which no reliance could be placed qua the petitioner. It is submitted that apart from these retracted statements of the co-accused, there was not a shred of evidence against the petitioner to establish that he had abetted the commission of the offence by the public servant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order would show that the charge was framed by the learned Trial Court believing that in the course of the trial, any one of the accused may prefer to testify under Section 315 Cr.P.C. read with Section 21 of the PC Act or better still, the confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. may be proved and, therefore, available to be used by the prosecution under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Learned counsel submitted that this was a convoluted reasoning. Thus, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the order on charge as well as the charge framed be quashed.

8. Mr. Mridul Jain, learned SPP for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the scope of this petition was limited and nar