IMPORTANT POINT
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 there is no legal evidence.

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 that same was disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not furnish any satisfactory explanation. During the course of investigation, the CBI arraigned 12 persons as accused including the present applicant. Charge against the present applicant was that from the Bank account No.971 of M/s.Rajesh N. Jhaveri sole proprietor concerned through eight cheques an amount of Rs.24 Lakh was transferred into the account of Mr.Chandrika Prasad as well as Mrs.Chandrakanti Sinha who are parents of accused No.1 Ashutosh Chandra. This amount was transferred through cheque wherein the signature of Mr.Gautam Jhaveri was made as a proprietor of M/s.Rajesh N. Jhaveri. On the basis of this cheuqe the applicant was arraigned as accused and the chargesheet was filed against the present applicant.

2.1. The present applicant after filing the chargesheet has filed, an application below Exhibit 27 praying to discharge from the charges on the ground that firm,namely M/s.Rajesh N. Jhaveri is not the sole ownership of the present applicant. It is contended in the application that the applicant is not account holder of A/c No.971 of Canera Bank of India, Ahmedabad Stock Exchange Branch, Ahmedabad along with an application he filed a certificate issued by the Bank stating that M/s.Rajesh N. Jhaveri’s account No.1023356205(CD971) is a proprietorship firm, the account was opened by the proprietor, namely, Gautam N. Jhaveri in the Branch on 23.04.1999 and is being maintained with the branch till date. This certificate was issued on 05.12.2011. By producing this certificate, it is contended that as except the charge that the amount was transferred from the current account No.971 wherein the firm which was stated to have been opened in the name of the applicant, was not the proprietorship firm of the applicant and except this allegation, no other allegations were made, therefore, prayer was made to discharge from the charges alleged in the chargesheet.

2.2. The said application came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2015 on the ground that there is a grave and serious suspicion against the present applicant and therefore, prosecution is required to be given one opportunity to prove the case. The authority to operate the Bank account or the real ownership of the firm or whether accused was having any interest in the firm is required to be proved through the evidence during the trial and therefore, the application for seeking discharge from the charges came to be rejected, the same is impugned before this Court.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala for the applicant and learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.R.C.Kodekar for respondent No.1.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Anandjiwala submits that the cheque which was the base for the