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.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 253 of 2018 arising out of ECIR/02/Pat/09/AD(D) by which the learned Special Judge, CBI has rejected the petition for discharge of the petitioner and it transpires from the record that subsequently the charges for the offences punishable under section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 have been framed inter-alia against the petitioner and his private secretary namely Uma Shankar Malviya along with Ajay Singh, Prashant Kumar Singh, Santoshi Devi during the check period from March 2005 to July, 2009; while the petitioner was a Member of Legislative Assembly and Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand, having directly or indirectly indulged in process and activities in connection with proceeds of crime of the schedule offence and knowingly have obtained/acquired huge properties and made bank transactions in the Jharkhand and other states by involving in process and activities connected with the proceeds of the crime of the schedule offences of the said offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 valued Rs. 7,97,96,888/- and the petitioner and others have projected the said properties as untainted properties. It further transpires that after framing the charge, the six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution during the trial and except PW-3 rest of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly on 13.03.2005 and while working as public servant as Member of Legislative Assembly and as Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand during the check period of 13.03.2005 to 24.07.2009 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 6,99,95,964/- by abusing his official position and the disproportionate assets so acquired has been invested by the petitioner and the co-accused person in the form of movable/immovable assets:

(i) in the name of his relatives.

(ii) in the trust of which the petitioner was authorized signatory.

(iii) in two front companies, which were incorporated for this purpose but which companies were not having any business activity.

It is further alleged that the acquisition of disproportionate asset by the petitioner while working as public servant is punishable offence under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in this respect, Vigilance FIR. No. 09 of 2009 dated 02.07.2009 was registered before the Vigilance Police Station, Ranchi, and subsequently in terms of the order dated 04.08.2010 in WP (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 passed by a Bench of this Court, the investigation was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation and the C.B.I. re-registered the case as RC-05(A)/10-AHD-R dated 11.08.2010 and after due investigation of the case, the Charge-Sheet No. 07 of 2011 dated 22.12.2011 has been submitted inter-alia against the petitioner which is schedule offences of this case which has been instituted against the petitioner and others for having committed the offences punishable under section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is further alleged that the petitioner has illegally acquired Rs. 7,97,96,888/- and laundered the said money with the aid and assistance of the co-accused persons in the form of movable and immovable properties. It is further alleged that modus operandi of the petitioner is basically of three types:

(i) The petitioner acquired immovable property in the name of his relatives who could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding their sources of acquisition of properties as such the explanations regarding the source of money for acquisition of such properties given by them were found to be false during the in