Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Petitioner submits that the order on charge is based upon baseless conjectures, and the Ld. Trial Court is unjustified in forming the opinion that the answer sheets may have been exchanged even after the attendance sheets were filed. The uncertainty and vagueness of the charge itself is sufficient ground for quashing the same. Reliance is placed on Sarbans Singh & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi 116 (2005) DLT 698; L.K.Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1997 CRI.L.J 2559; and on Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. IV (2008) CCR 426 (SC).

54. Mr. D.C. Mathur, the Ld. Senior advocate for the petitioner relies on L.K. Advani 1997 CrLJ 2559, wherein in para 102 the court had observed "there can only be one presumption and that is of the innocence of the accused." A different presumption cannot be raised. The charges have to be based on evidence which is legally convertible at the stage of trial. In the present case, there is no legally admissible material on record to indicate exchange of answer sheets or question papers during the course of the examination.

67. In L.K.Advani (supra), this Court observed as follows:-

"57...............the prosecution must show a prima facie case against the accused in order to enable the Court to frame a charge against him. If the evidence before the Court is of such type which if un-rebutted and un-challenged by way of cross- examination would not be sufficient enough to convict the accused ultimately then the Court would not be justified in framing the charge against the accused. The Court at that stage is under no obligation to make an elaborate enquiry by sifting and weighing the material to find out a case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt which it is required to do at the time of the final hearing. The Judge at that preliminary stage is simply required to find out that there was material which may lead to the inference that the accused has committed an offence. Thus the charge can be framed by the Court against an accused if the material placed before it raises a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence. In other words, the Court would be justified in framing the charges against an accused if the prosecution has sown the seed in the form of the incriminating material which has got the potential to develop itself into a full- fledged tree of conviction later on."