Courts must discharge an accused only if no prima facie case exists. At the discharge stage, the court should identify grave suspicion based on the material on record without conducting a trial or weighing evidence. Revisional interference is limited to cases of perversity or jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT

RULE. Learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present application is taken up for final hearing today.

1.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein requesting to quash and set aside the order dated 09.01.2023 passed below Exh.17, by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.7, Ahmedabad in Special CBI Case No.5 of 2021, whereby the learned Judge rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 A regular case being R.C. No.0292019A0009 dated 01/07/2019 for the offences under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) came to be registered with CBI, Gandhinagar and after carrying out investigation, the Police Officer of C.B.I. filed the charge-sheet against three accused under the above referred provisions of law, amongst which Accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and present applicant is shown as accused No.3, who is cousin of accused No.1. It is the case of the CBI that the accused No.1 and accused No.2 acquired and owned disproportionate assets during the check period (from 01/01/2010 to 09/07/2019) as compared to all their known sources of income and the disproportionate assets so calculated are about 124.09% of the total of all known sources of income of the present applicant and therefore, the present applicant came to be charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, which culminated into Special CBI Case No.5/2021.

2.2 That, the applicant herein – original accused No.3 preferred an application Exh.17 under Section 227 of the CrPC requesting to discharge him from the charges levelled against him. The learned Special Judge vide the impugned order rejected the said application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the applicant has preferred the present revision application.

3.0 Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the applicant has submitted that the there is no evidence even prima facie to frame charge under the sections alleged in the charge sheet. Further, even if the documents and prerecorded statements of witnesses are considered, there is not an iota of evidence against the present applicant which connects the present applicant with the alleged offence of abetment of acquiring and possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources of legal income by co-accused Nos.1 and 2. He has further submitted that neither a single witness has stated anything against or explained the complicity of the present applicant nor a single witness has explained any role played by accused No.3 in this case. Further, there is no evidence in the entire charge-sheet to show that the applicant has abetted co-accused Nos.1 and 2 to acquire any disproportionate assets. There is no evidence in the charge-sheet to show that the present applicant was in possession of any property of accused nos.1 & 2 at any point of time. He has also argued that the applicant herein is innocent and has not committed any offence alleged against him and not disclosing any offence prima facie as none of the amount of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income is correct mathematically, logically and factually. He has further submitted that there is no grave suspicion sufficient enough to frame the charge against the applicant accused though the learned Judge has rejected the application seeking discharge. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present application.

4.0 Learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar appearing on behalf of the respondent – CBI has vehemently opposed the present application by submitting that before the learn