Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. On behalf of respondent-CBI, learned standing counsel for CBI had staunchly supported the impugned order and asserted that for the offence of criminal conspiracy there cannot be direct evidence and that audio and video CDs are sufficient to prima facie establish the complicity of petitioners in commission of the offence in question and there is a certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus Apex Court's decision in Anvar P.V. (supra) is of no avail to petitioners. It was pointed out that on 18th December, 2009 the fifteen CDs in packet 'A and other seven CDs in packet 'B' were received from CBI-SU- Kolkata and twenty one relied upon calls are contained in CD No.14 in packet 'A' which corresponded to CD No.7 in packet 'B'. It was also pointed out that seven working CDs in packet 'B' were the basis of preparing the transcripts of the twenty one calls in the CDs in question and the seven CDs in packet 'B' are duly authenticated and certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, it was submitted on behalf of respondent-CBI that the above referred electronic record and the statement of witnesses recorded makes out a prima facie case to try petitioners alongwith other co-accused for the offence in Crl.M.C.No.2455/2014 & Crl.Rev. P.No.385/2012 Page 12 question and at the stage of framing of charge a roving enquiry is impermissible and to find out as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not, there cannot be a mini trial and the prosecution case has to be taken on the face of it and once it is done, then it becomes evident that there is sufficient material on record to put petitioners on trial. To assert so, reliance is placed upon decisions in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. 2012 (9) SCC 460; Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2013 (11) SCC 476; State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa & Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 89; Shri Anur Kumar Jain vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Order and Judgment dated 29.03.2011 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 80/2010 (D.B.); K. K. Belusamy vs. N. Palanisamy 2011 (11) SCC 275; Dharambir vs. CBI 2008 (148) DLT 289 and Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 2011 (4) SCC 402. Finally, it was submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and these petitions deserves to be dismissed.