Back
M. K. THAKKER
Rajesh Nanubhai Jhaveri – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision application is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ referred hereinafter) challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court at CBI Court No.1 dated 20.08.2015 in Special Case No.9 of 2008 below Exhibit 27 whereby the application preferred by the present applicant seeking discharge from the charges punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution is that CBI has registered an offence for the above mentioned charges against the accused No.1, namely, Ashutosh Chandra (the then Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad) on 31.01.2005. It has been alleged in the aforesaid case that accused No.1 Ashutosh Chandra joined Railway during 1995 as an Operational Manager, the check period was from 01.03.1996 to 02.02.2005, during this period it was revealed that an amount of Rs.1,11,25,000/was detected to have been received into the Bank account of Shri Ashutosh Chandra and his family member to their various Bank accounts maintained at Ahmedabad and it was found
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offense and the power of the judge to discharge the accused if ther....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge can be framed based on the possibility of the commission of a crime, even if the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Cour....
Framing of charge – Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused.
The court upheld the rejection of a discharge application, emphasizing that a prima facie case must exist without conducting a mini-trial, affirming the principles of evidence evaluation at the disch....
The court ruled that sufficient prima facie evidence can justify proceeding with charges of misappropriation, irrespective of past departmental findings of non-responsibility.
(1) No provision in Cr.P.C. grants any right to accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge.(2) Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating....
At the stage of framing charges, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and be satisfied that the commission of the offense by the accused was possible.
At the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, mini trial is not permissible. Defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and/or at stage ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
