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 Court also emphasized that the revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power and that the High Court is only required to consider whether a prima facie case was made out or not.

JUDGMENT :

All these three cases are arising out of same FIR, however, discharge and charge orders are different and in view of that, all these cases are being heard together with consent of the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the CBI.

3. In all these petitions, the prayer is made for quashing the orders dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.17(A)/2016-R registered for the offences under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby, discharge petitions filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners have been rejected. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the petitioner-Ashutosh Kumar was working as Deputy General Manager, MSME Tool Room, Jamshedpur (Indo Danish Tool Room), Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India and he had acquired pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.1,40,37,414/- during the check period 01.04.2007 to 23.09.2016 which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the accused persons. It was further alleged by the prosecution that after investigation, the petitioner-Ashutosh Kumar while working and being posted in different capacities at Indo Danish Tool Room, Jamshedpur during the check period 01.04.2007 to 07.10.2016 was in possession of assets in his own name and in the name of his family members which is disproportionate to the known source of income to the tune of Rs.1,96,97,628/-. It was also alleged by the prosecution that the petitioners-Keshav Vats and Chaynika Kumari abetted Ashutosh Kumar in acquisition of assets beyond the known sources of income and in dealing with unaccounted money.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that the petitioner-Ashutosh Kumar has earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.112 of 2022 challenging the sanction order, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2023 and the said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the charge orders with regard to the petitioners are not in accordance with law and parameters of charge have not been considered by the learned Court and the petitions filed for discharge have been rejected. He submits that the father-in-law of the petitioner-Ashutosh Kumar retired from the Government service and he received huge amount of retiral benefit apart from retiral benefit, he also had income from the agricultural land situated at his native village prior to check period as such at the beginning of the check period, the father-in-law of the petitioner-Ashutosh Kumar was also having amount of Rs.5 Lakhs which was intentionally not considered by the CBI. He further submits that in the charge-sheet, there is nothing against the petitioner-Ashutosh Kumar and in view of that, he is required to be discharged.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioner-Chaynika Kumari has been rejected by the leaned Court without appreciating the proposition of law in its right direction. He also submits that the Investigation Officer overlooked the income certificates and documents in support of agricultural income and income from dairy business of father-in-law of the petitioner and assets have been undervalued by the authority without any reason. He submits that the petitioner-Chaynika Kumari has not participated in disproportionate inco