The court emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case at the stage of framing charges and highlighted the commonality of purpose and design in committing the offenses as a basis for joint trial.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, framing charge against the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharya, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. K. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned Sr. Counsel and standing counsel, CBI, assisted Mrs. M. K. Devi, learned Advocate.

3. The petitioner along with 37 others have been arraigned as accused persons in Special Case No. 81/2004 now pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati. The petitioner is the accused No. 32. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special ACU-II, New Delhi filed charge-sheet dated 15-7-1998 on the basis of the investigation of the case No. RC. 3(A)/94-ACU-II dated 17-5-1994.

4. The prosecution can as set up in the charge-sheet and the documents filed along with the charge-sheet is that a case under Sections 120-B, 409, 468, 420, IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Assam on the basis of the FIR No. 12 dated 3-7-1993. The case was subsequently transferred to the CBI vide Government of Assam notification dated 3-5-1994 and accordingly the case was registered as Case No. RC 3(A) 94, ACU-II on 17-5-1994 under the aforesaid provisions of IPC and PC Act.

5. The prosecution story in brief is that during the year 1986 to 1992, the accused officers of the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, Government of Assam entered into a criminal company with several private individuals including the present petitioner with the object to sick the Government of Assam and in pursuance to such conspiracy, they dishonestly and fraudulently prepared and used as genuine, several fake and forged bills for supply and construction works and withdrew huge amounts from the Sibsagar treasury and thereby caused pecuniary lost to the tune of Rs. 48,81,50,932.40 to the Government of Assam and made corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and others.

6. The prosecution submitted a list of 539 documents and statements of as many as 481 witnesses, which constituted the documents under Section 173, Cr. PC. According to the petitioner, the case sought to be built up against him by the prosecution, only the statements of 3 witnesses namely P.Ws. 232, 233 and 453 have only bearing. In addition to the statements the 3 witnesses, the prosecution has also sought to rely upon the statement of P.W. 453 recorded under Section 164, Cr. PC, which according to the petitioner never formed part of the documents under Section 173, Cr. PC and a photocopy of the same with interpolations and corrections, for the first time, saw the light of the day in the proceedings relating to framing of charge when the public prosecutor produced the same.

7. The petitioner filed his objection against the charge-sheet. He also filed an application on 24-9-2002 contending that in the event of framing charge against all the accused persons including the petitioner the case of the petitioner be tried separately. The prosecution also filed written objection to the said objection. Thereafter, the matter relating to framing of charge was heard and the learned Special Judge by the impugned order dated 3-9-2005 framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC.

8. According to the petitioner in the entire charge-sheet there is no specific allegation or indication as to when the petitioner became a party to the alleged conspiracy and what was the precised role played by him in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. The charge-sheet only contained absolutely vague allegation against the petitioner. That being the position, the petitioner contends that, the trial Court could not have framed charge against him.

9. Mr. Bhattacharyan, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner in his extensive argument, referred to the grounds urged in the revision application towards assa