1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2010 Union of India ... Applicant Versus Dharmendra Guryani and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. J.R. Solanki, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent no. 1. Mr. R.V. Newton, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 30, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel extensively. 2. In CBI Special Case No. 21 of 2008 on an application below Exh. 7 on hearing the learned counsel for respondent Dharmandra Guryani and the learned counsel for CBI, the learned Special Judge by order dated 14.11.2005 discharged Dharmendra Guryani from the offence punishable under section 120B IPC and section 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI/petitioner questions the same. 2 3. The learned counsel for the CBI submits based on the report of Sanjay Gupta, a trap was laid in which one Mewalal Gupta, RPF employee was nabbed on 28.11.2007 for receiving Rs.500/- as gratification from the said complainant. The learned counsel submits in the statement of the complainant recorded subsequently there is reference of Mewalal claiming that amount of Rs.500/- was taken at the behest of respondent No. 2 Guryani. The learned counsel for the petitioner CBI submits that the grounds raised by the learned Judge namely name of respondent is not reflected in the FIR or that the respondent no. 1 was away at Delhi at the material time, ought not to have been considered. He stressed, the documents purportedly tendered by accused/respondent ought not to have been considered at the stage of application for discharge. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that statements of the witnesses are belatedly recorded. Statements of Harishankar, Ramesh and others need not be gone into as the respondent has initiated action against them, they were convicted and naturally are having grudge against the respondent. The learned counsel. submits that somebody highly placed official is between the affairs, as for no reasons, in the report of the complainant, at the bottom of the report names of three 3 persons including respondent no. 1 is recorded without any mention as to what was the occasion. In support of his contention the learned counsel produced certified copy of the said report. The learned counsel also submits that respondent Guryani is rewarded for his best services. There was no reason for the officers to cause search of his residence, that too hurriedly and to collect alleged documents. He reiterates the discharge recorded below Exh. 7 by the learned Special Judge is in tune with the record and need not be disturbed as the view taken by the learned Judge was a possible view. 5. There should not be any quarrel on the legal proposition, at the stage of framing charge, the Judge has to scan only material which is placed by the prosecution and that too to the extent of actionable material to frame charge. He is not required to scan minutely and meticulously and to infer that ultimately there would not be any conviction. Reasonable suspicion on available record against the suspect is sufficient to frame charge. The law on the point of entertaining evidence of the respondent (accused) at the stage of charge, is well decided in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2004 AIR SCW 6813. 4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 highlighting the legal position have observed : "Reading section 227 and 228 in juxtaposition as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight tobe attached to the probable defence of the accused." Taking survey of all these aspects, even skipping statements to which reference was made by the learned A.P.P., the fact remains that in the taperecorded statement which was produced by the prosecuting agency at the time of trap, there is reference of the respondent to be a beneficiary out of the trap amount which is reflected at pages 96 and 98 of the compilation. The another feature against the accused is, search immediately caused at his residence disclosed, several receipts of extraneous considerations are enlisted. The handwriting experts report dated 6.2.2008 at page 52 primarily informs that the list of payments is in the handwriting of respondent Guryani. Suspicion about commission 5 of offence and involvement of accused is sufficient to frame charge. The order of discharge below Exh. 7 by the learned Judge was contrary to the record and he was certainly wrong when he believes in para 10 of his judgment about the plea of alibi raised by respondent. The plea of alibi is a defence to be taken at the stage of evidence and not at the stage of framing charge. The application is allowed. The accused to appear before the learned Special Judge on 7th October, 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)