Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Gopal Ansal (Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 3277/2021) contends that this Court, while deciding a revision petition against an order on charge has not expanded the scope of charge. He has taken this Court through paragraphs No.34 and 117 of the judgment dated 12.05.2017 passed by this Court in CRL. REV. P. Nos. 262/2016, 263/2016, 264/2016 & 265/2016 to substantiate his contention. He contends that Section 10 of the IEA is a rule of evidence and Section 10 of the IEA comes into play only when there is a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. He states that there is no finding by the Ld. Trial Court that the Petitioners have entered into a conspiracy with any person. He, therefore, states that the second part of Section 10 of IEA being that anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed so to be conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy. To buttress his argument Mr. Hariharan places reliance on Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody v. The State of Bombay, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 1. He also places reliance on L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 382, and more particularly on paragraph No. 87 of the said judgment wherein this Court has held that the prosecution must prove the factum of evidence other than the disputed evidence i.e. the diaries and the loose sheets. Paragraph No.87 of decision in L.K. Advani (supra), on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Hariharan, reads as under: