ASHRAF JAMAL Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL revision petition, preferred against the impugned orders dated 10.05.1999 and 06.07.1999 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. RC 4(S) / 93-SIU-(II)-CBI, by Shri Anupam Rajan, being Crl. Rev.P.270/1999 has been dismissed by a separate judgment. Arguments had been heard and judgment reserved in this petition and Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 270/1999, initially on 21.05.2010. However, the judgment could not be pronounced within a reasonable period of time due to the heavy work load. Consequently, these cases were listed again and the counsels were heard again.

(2.) THE petitioner is a co-accused along with Shri Anupam Rajan. THE case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and Anupam Rajan appeared in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1993 held on 13.06.1993. In the optional paper, both the accused had opted for Sociology subject. In the examination for the said Sociology paper, it is alleged that the petitioner and Anupam Rajan swapped their answer sheets and Anupam Rajan had solved the question paper of the petitioner Ashraf Jamal and vice versa. It is alleged that by doing so, the petitioner Ashraf Jamal secured high marks which eventually led to his being declared pass in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1993. Both the accused have been charged for substantive offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and also for conspiracy under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It would, therefore, be seen that the case against both the accused is the same.

(3.) HE submits that under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, anything said, done or written by any one of the persons alleged to be in conspiracy,in reference to their common intention, is a relevant fact against each of the persons to be so conspiring, provided there is independent evidence of existence of the conspiracy to commit an offence. HE submits that there is no independent evidence in this case of the existence of the conspiracy. The questioned/disputed documents viz. the answer sheets of Anupam Rajan and Ashraf Jamal cannot be considered as the independent evidence to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy. In this regard, he places reliance on State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini and Others, 1999 Crl.L.J 3124 and L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Crl.L.J 2559. HE submits that the Court is expected to look into the broad probabilities of the case while examining the issue whether, or not, charge should be framed against the accused on the basis of the charge-sheet. In this regard, he places reliance upon Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1962.