Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent's discharge was justified at the charge stage for want of a prima facie case of involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy and illegal gratification offences.
Analysis: The material in the charge sheet did not connect the respondent to the alleged payment of Rs.58,000/-. As regards the alleged payments of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, the prosecution relied on diary entries and alleged conspiracy, but the entries referred to "DM", which, on the prosecution's own stand in the discharge proceedings, denoted Dushyant Mulani and not the respondent. No witness stated that "DM" meant the respondent, and there was no telephonic conversation or other direct material linking him to the alleged payments. At the stage of charge, the Court found that mere bald allegations of conspiracy, without factual particulars connecting the respondent to the offence, were insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Conclusion: The respondent's discharge was in law and the challenge to it failed; the case against the respondent did not disclose a prima facie basis to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing of charge, a person cannot be proceeded against on the basis of bare allegations of conspiracy alone unless the charge-sheet material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie link between that person and the alleged offence.