BIDHI CHAND DHIMAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions are heard analogously and proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THESE petitions are directed against a common judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No.3 of 2009 by which charge was framed against the accused petitioners under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in P.C.Act only) read with Section 120(B) IPC.

(3.) IN my considered view, the above grounds are not sustainable under the law inasmuch as the law as regards framing of charge is that the trial court is only to find out whether the materials collected by the prosecution are sufficient to presume that he is involved in connected with the case and not to establish the guilt. I have gone through the records as made available by the learned counsel for the CBI. The pre-trap and post trap poceedings were held in presence of 3(three) non-official witnesses, whose statements were also recorded by the I.O. supportng the prosecution case amongst the three independent witnesses, one is a photographer, who was present with his video camera at the time of pre-trap and post trap. His statements were also recorded under Section 161 CrPC who amongst other stated that in presence of independent witnesses he copied the contents of the video cassette on to a computer through video camera with the help of a cable and thereafter transferred the contents of the said proceedings recorded on computer to three compact disks. No fault on the part of the prosecution can be attributed for not making any prayer by the I.O. before the court for recording statements under Section 164 CrPC and illegality/irregularity in framing charge on that score. The materials found are that the accused petitioner Shri B.C. Dhiman visited the informant's office and he offered the cash amount of Rs.5 lacs and prima facie these materials are sufficient to cause suspicion on the said accused petitioner and frame charge against him which the prosecution is bound to prove and if the prosecution fails to prove the charge the accused petitioner would be entitled to acquittal. The learned Special Judge, committed no error or illegality in framing the charge against the prime accused Shri B.C. Dhiman and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order so far it relates to him. There is no merit, in this case and accordingly the petition stands dismissed.