TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes charges due to lack of evidence, emphasizes need for prima facie case</h1> <h3>REKHA NAMBIAR, BHOJRAJ TELI Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION</h3> REKHA NAMBIAR, BHOJRAJ TELI Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of charges framed against the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.2. Allegations of disproportionate assets under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act.3. Allegations of abetment under Section 109 IPC.4. Evaluation of the evidence and material on record.5. Applicability of legal precedents and principles in framing charges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Charges Framed Against the Petitioners:The petitioners challenged the orders dated 01.05.2014 and 26.05.2014, framing charges against them. The court decided to dispose of both petitions through a common judgment due to their arising from the same order.2. Allegations of Disproportionate Assets:The case was initiated on 22.02.2010 against accused No.1, Ramesh Nambiar, for allegedly amassing disproportionate assets worth Rs.2,39,21,165/- during his tenure at Air India. The investigation revealed that the total income of Ramesh Nambiar and his family was Rs.1,67,03,318.37/-. The CBI alleged that petitioner Rekha Nambiar received Rs.1,04,07,829/- as consultancy fees from petitioner Bhojraj Teli without rendering any real consultancy work, thereby aiding Ramesh Nambiar in acquiring disproportionate assets.3. Allegations of Abetment:The chargesheet included allegations under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act against Rekha Nambiar and Bhojraj Teli. The CBI claimed that Bhojraj Teli abetted the offence by paying consultancy fees to Rekha Nambiar without justification and allowing the use of his credit card by Ramesh Nambiar.4. Evaluation of Evidence and Material on Record:The trial court's decision to frame charges was based on the absence of records relating to consultancy work. However, the court ignored several crucial pieces of evidence:- The MoU dated 04.06.2006, indicating Rekha Nambiar's 20% contribution to M/s HYT Innovative Projects Ltd.- Statements from witnesses and income tax returns showing declared income.- The CBI's failure to establish any direct or indirect investment by Ramesh Nambiar in M/s Archana Traders Pvt. Ltd.5. Applicability of Legal Precedents and Principles:The court referred to several legal precedents, emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, there must be some material indicating a prima facie case. It highlighted that suspicion alone is insufficient for framing charges. The court also noted that the CBI could not establish the involvement of M/s Archana Traders Pvt. Ltd., which was central to the allegations of abetment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the trial court's decision to frame charges was without proper application of mind and ignored crucial evidence favoring the petitioners. It quashed the orders dated 01.05.2014 and 26.05.2014, as well as the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, thus allowing the petitions with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 