The Delhi High Court has quashed the charges against a Chartered Accountant under the Prevention of Corruption Act holding that the allegations cannot be confirmed merely on the basis of confession of the accused.
The CBI registered a case against the petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar Kila finding that he being a Chartered Accountant had furnished names of his clients to the co-accused to aid her in converting black money into white, by receiving cash from her and issuing cheques in return. Later, the Trial Court confirmed the allegations by considering the fact that the accused confessed the same.
Justice Asha Menon observed that there is no gainsaying that such a reasoning is indeed convoluted. “Charge can be framed only on the material before the court and cannot be based on speculation. The court had to consider whether on the charge sheet and documents relied upon by the CBI, including the retracted confessional statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P .C, there were sufficient grounds to frame charge against the petitioner. The learned Trial Court itself records in the impugned order that in both the letters i.e., D-92 and D-253 relied upon by the prosecution, the petitioner has not been mentioned and that the confessional statements have been retracted. Clearly, therefore, the prosecution necessarily had to point what other material existed that would connect the petitioner with the offence so that if and when the confession is proved, it can assist the court to come to a just decision,” the Court said.
Quashing the Trial Court order, the Court held that “the record discloses no independent material against the petitioner. Even the learned Trial Court in the impugned order refers to no such material. Retracted statements of a co-accused will be utterly inadequate to establish, prima-facie, the participation of the petitioner in a conspiracy with the co-accused to facilitate the commission of the offences under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the PC Act in respect of which the charge has been framed against the petitioner which was why the learned Trial Court wanted to wait and watch, for a probability that did not exist in the immediate present, and which decision of the learned Trial Court cannot be upheld.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
