Charge-framing under FERA: co-accused statements may support prima facie suspicion when backed by surrounding material.

At the charge-framing stage under FERA, a co-accused's statement may be considered with surrounding material to test for strong suspicion and a prima facie case, even though such a statement is not substantive evidence under the Evidence Act. The objection that the maker was not examined was rejected because the recorded statement was admissible in the manner provided by law. The Court also treated the recovery of foreign currency, the seizure memo, the admitted employer-employee relationship, and related documents as sufficient prima facie material. On that basis, interference with the charge order was not warranted and discharge was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order framing charge under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the case rested mainly on the statement of a co-accused and that there was no sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner.

Analysis: The statement recorded under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as admissible, and the objection that the maker of the statement was not examined was rejected in view of the mode of proof and the presumption attached to such recorded statements. The entire statement of the co-accused was read as a whole and was held not to be exculpatory merely because it also implicated the petitioner. The statement of a co-accused under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence, but it can be taken into account to lend assurance where other material exists. Here, the recovery of foreign currency, the seizure memo, the admitted employer-employee relationship, and the surrounding documents were found to furnish sufficient prima facie material, and at the stage of charge the Court was not required to finally evaluate the evidentiary worth of each item.

Conclusion: The challenge to the framing of charge failed, and the petitioner was not entitled to discharge or interference at the pre-trial stage.

Final Conclusion: A prima facie case existed against the petitioner, and the order framing charge was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge, a co-accused statement, though not substantive evidence, may be considered along with other surrounding material to determine whether a strong suspicion and prima facie case exist against the accused.

---