2014 (5) TMI 973 - HC - Indian Laws

Conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC - Conviction under Sections 7 & 12 of The Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - The need for independent application of mind has been stressed upon by Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar (2010 (9) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). In Prafulla Kumar (1978 (11) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT), relied upon by respondent, Apex Court has ruled that excepting the cases of grave suspicion, which the accused is unable to explain, Trial Court is empowered to discharge the accused. In Soma Chakravarty (2007 (5) TMI 590 - SUPREME COURT), Apex Court has reiterated that suspicion alone cannot be the basis for framing of charge and there must exist some material therefore to justify framing of charge. In Amit Kapoor (2014 (1) TMI 1042 - Supreme Court Of India), Apex Court has clarified that the suspicion ought to be strong enough to justify framing of charges. During the course of hearing, it was not shown by respondent s counsel as to how call No. 48 can be reasonably explained. As call No. 48 is prior in time, so first prosecution has to explain this call and then only, petitioner can be called upon to give a reasonable explanation regarding subsequent call No. 51. Since the so-called incriminating call No. 51 stands completely demolished by call No. 48, therefore, it cannot be prima facie said that there is grave suspicion about involvement of petitioner in the commission of offences in question - Viewed from any angle, prima facie case is not made out against petitioner. Thus, impugned order qua petitioner is rendered unsustainable and is quashed - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Charges under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Quashing of charges based on insufficient evidence and interpretation of call details.
- Legal principles regarding framing of charges and the threshold of suspicion in criminal cases.

Analysis:

1. Charges under Section 120B of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act:
The petitioner, a Commissioner (Excise), was charged with conspiring to obtain a bribe of Rs. 60 lac through an illegal raid. The prosecution relied on intercepted phone calls to establish the conspiracy involving the petitioner, a Superintendent, and another individual. The charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner deputed the Superintendent for the illegal raid and was informed about the recoveries made during the operation. The prosecution sought to prosecute the petitioner under Section 120B of IPC based on the call details.

2. Quashing of Charges and Legal Threshold:
The petitioner sought to quash the charges, arguing that if two views are possible on the evidence, it should not lead to grave suspicion justifying a trial. The defense cited various legal precedents to support this argument. The prosecution relied on call details and circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner to the offenses. The Trial Court found sufficient material to frame charges of conspiracy against the petitioner. However, the defense contended that there was no concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses.

3. Interpretation of Call Details and Suspicion Threshold:
During the hearing, the defense highlighted discrepancies in the call details and argued that certain calls contradicted the prosecution's case. The defense emphasized that the prosecution's reliance on a specific call to implicate the petitioner was erroneous. The Court examined the call details and concluded that the evidence did not establish a strong suspicion of the petitioner's involvement in the offenses. The Court emphasized the need for a grave suspicion to justify framing charges in criminal cases.

4. Judicial Analysis and Disposition:
After considering the arguments and legal principles, the Court analyzed the call details and the prosecution's case. The Court found that the evidence presented did not create a prima facie case against the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of independent application of mind and the threshold of suspicion required to frame charges. Ultimately, the Court quashed the charges against the petitioner, refraining from commenting on the merits to avoid prejudicing the co-accused at trial.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of conspiracy charges, the interpretation of call details, and the threshold of suspicion required in criminal cases. The Court's analysis highlights the importance of strong evidence and grave suspicion to justify framing charges against an accused individual, ultimately leading to the quashing of charges against the petitioner in this case.