IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 28th August, 2015
Crl. MC No. 3512/2015
VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH
Represented by: Mr. Harsh K. Sharma,
Mr. Rohit Gaur and Ms. Mehak N., Advs.
Represented by: Ms. Sonia Mathur,
Ms. Meghna Rohatgi, Advs. with
Mr. Raman Kumar Shukla, Investigating Officer
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A.No.12531/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. 3512/2015
1. Vide the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge-IV, (PC Act) CBI: Delhi whereby the trial court has passed an Order on Charge against the petitioner under sections 7 & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner was that on 20.08.2010 after apprehension of accused no. 1, i.e., Architect, made call to the petitioner on his mobile no. 9716777237 and the conversation took place between them is not admissible in evidence being confessional statement of accused no. 1 as he was in custody of the CBI at that time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was maintaining mobile no. 9810008449 and the above mentioned mobile number 9716777237 was of one Sunil Kumar Sharma. As per the statement of Mr. Sharma recorded under section 161 CrPC this number has been lost by him and he had moved an application regarding loss of the said number at PS Kotwali.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered under section 8 of the PC Act against the petitioner and investigation has also been carried out under section 8 of the PC Act. However, the learned trial court has directed to frame the charges under section 7 & 8 of the PC Act without any material on record. He submits that since there is no material on record against the petitioner it will be a futile exercise if the petitioner is directed to face trial in this case.
5. The trial court while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The material placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused. The court has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before it. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can...