https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248046 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. en-us Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248046 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248046