In a criminal conspiracy case where the evidence is inseparable, the acquittal of co-accused in the mother case warrants the discharge of a remaining accused in a split-up case if the prosecution fails to provide distinct, prima facie evidence of that individual's direct involvement in the criminal acts.

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1016 of 2008 facing trial for offence under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 r/w 20 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 had filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.10437 of 2025. The trial Court, by order dated 31.10.2025, dismissed the same, against which, the present revision is filed.

In this case, originally charge sheet filed against 7 persons including the petitioner and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.2230 of 2003. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court, absconded, the case against him got split up in C.C.No.1016 of 2008. As regards the mother case in C.C.No.2230 of 2003, the trial proceeded against the accused and the trial Court by judgment dated 30.01.2012, convicted A1 to A3 for offence under Section 4 r/w 20 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each but acquitted A1 to A3 for offence under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of I.P.C. and acquitted A4 to A6 for offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 r/w 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

3. (i) The case of the prosecution is that in this case, A1-Ganesh is a resident of Mumbai. A2-Venkatesh, Partner of M/s.Lakshmie and Sons, A3-Harikrishnan, Partner of M/s.Lakshmie and Sons and Director of M/s.Nisarga Softwares Private Limited and A4-Mahesh Pujara, Director of M/s.Nisarga Softwares Private Limited, A5-M/s.Lakshmie & Sons, a private Partnership Firm and A6-M/s.Nisarga Software Private Limited, a private limited company. The petitioner/A7 is shown as Consultant of M/s.Nisarga Software Private Limited. During the period 2000 and 2001, all the accused entered into a conspiracy. In pursuant to the conspiracy, A1 induced and instigated A2 to A4 and the petitioner/A7 committed criminal misconduct to cheat the Government of India, Telecommunication Department (BSNL) by way of converting illegally the incoming international calls into local calls and further switching these incoming calls to the local telephone subscribers at Chennai, without obtaining a valid license from the Government of India, by-passing the legal VSNL/BSNL telecommunication channels and thereby obtained wrongful pecuniary gain to A1 to A7 and others and caused wrongful pecuniary loss to Government of India.

(ii) A1 and petitioner/A7 instigated A2 and A3 who were already running a partnership firm by name and style, M/s Lakshmie & Sons at No.10, First Floor, Kondi Chetty Street, Chennai-1 and carrying on the business of Foreign Exchange brokerage to book 13 telephone lines each from the Flower Bazaar Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Chennai to form an illegal telecom network by misusing the local telephone lines and tuned with the similar set up at USA by using broad band line provided by M/s Satyam Infoways Limited, Chennai and by connecting equipments like router, modem etc. and dishonestly received the incoming international calls by-passing BSNL and VSNL channels and converted them as local calls and further A1 to A7 fraudulently and dishonestly switched/distributed these incoming internationals calls to the local subscribers at Chennai and thereby caused wrongful pecuniary loss to the BSNL. Chennai Telephones.

(iii) The petitioner/A7 along with A1 negotiated with M/s Satyam Infoways Ltd. and obtained