Charge framing requires grave suspicion; weak interception evidence was held insufficient to sustain conspiracy and corruption charges.

At the stage of framing charges, the Court held that prosecution material must disclose grave suspicion, not mere suspicion, and must justify independent judicial application of mind. Frequent interaction with a co-accused and a solitary intercepted call were found insufficient to sustain charges for conspiracy and corruption offences, especially where an earlier intercepted call suggested the petitioner was unaware of the alleged illegal raid and gratification. On that basis, the charge order was found unsustainable and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order framing charges against the petitioner for conspiracy and corruption offences was sustainable in the absence of grave suspicion or a prima facie case.

Analysis: The material relied upon by the prosecution was found insufficient to justify framing of charge against the petitioner. Frequent interaction with the co-accused and a solitary intercepted call were held not enough by themselves to raise grave suspicion, particularly when another intercepted call prior in time indicated that the petitioner was unaware of the illegal raid and the alleged illegal gratification. The Court applied the settled principle that at the stage of charge the Court must exercise independent application of mind and may discharge the accused where the material raises only mere suspicion and not grave suspicion.

Conclusion: The charge order against the petitioner was held unsustainable and was quashed.

---