Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1954 (MAD)

Manohar Ahuja v. State, rep. by SPE, CBI, ACB

2006-08-03

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the order dated 18.5.2004 made in Crl.M.P.No.8/2004 in C.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge (for CBI cases) Coimbatore, dismissing the application for discharge.) This revision has been filed against the order of dismissal of the Discharge Petition in Crl.M.P.No: 8 of 2004 in C.C.No.2 of 2003 by the Second Additional District Judge (for CBI Cases), Coimbatore. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- (a) The revision petitioner is A.4 in the said case. A.1, a public servant was the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch during the period from 24.5.1999 to 3.7.2001. A.2 R.Sanjeevi is a private person, resident of Kodaikkanal and engaged in real estate business. He opened an SB Account bearing No.10301 on 30.11.2000 in Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch, with an initial deposit of Rs.500/=. He was introduced by a retired Army Officer, Lt.Col.S.K.Sundaram, A.3. he was working as Assistant Director, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, Coimbatore and he is also having an SB Account in the said Branch. A.4, the revision petitioner herein is a private person engaged in Finance Business. (b) According to the prosecution, A.1 to A.4 during 2000-2001 entered into criminal conspiracy at Ooty, Chennai and other places with one another to cheat the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy created fake and fabricated documents, used forged documents as genuine and in the process caused disappearance of documents and thereby caused a wrongful loss of Rs.1,00,00,000/= to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the petitioner herein with a fraudulent intention, advised L.W.1 Thadani Gulabrai Bhagchand, an Non Resident Indian residing in Hong Kong and the Managing Director of M/s.Interocean mercantile (Hong Kong) Ltd., to transfer the maturity proceeds of one of his FCNR deposit with Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Chennai for USD 5,28,362/= which was due to mature on 20.12.2000 to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch for placing in FCNR deposit for one year in the name of LW.1. L.W.1 accordingly transferred the amount believing A.4 and also sent an application form for opening an FCNR account duly filed to the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch vide his letter dated 5.2.201 with a request that the deposit receipt be sent to his Hong Kong address. The said amount was received in the Foreign Exchange International Division of the Central Bank of India, Mumbai and the amount was transferred to the Ooty Branch vide letter dated 27.12.2000 which was acknowledged by A.1. (c) A.1 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with A.2, A.3 and A.4 and by abusing his official position, instead of sending the FCNR(B) deposit receipt dated 27.12.2000 for USD 5,28,336 to LW.1 directly by Airmail/Courier, dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioned a third party loan of Rs.15 lakhs to A.2 based on a fake and forged power of attorney purported to have been given by L.W.1, against the security of the said FCNR(B) Deposit without the knowledge and consent of the depositor. A.1 himself prepared and passed debit and credit vouchers dated 29.12.2000 for Rs.15 lakhs favour A.2 debiting the loan account 32/197 and crediting the S.B.A/c.No.10301 of A.2. On the same day, A.2 withdrew a total amount of Rs.14,95,000/= from his SB Account by way of two cheques and the cheqeus were passed by A.1. He has also issued the cheque book to facilitate such withdrawal by A.2. A.1 in abuse of his official position, did not mark lien on the deposit receipt on 29.12.2000. A.1 also sanctioned another loan of Rs.55,03,000/= on 4.1.2001 to A.2 against the security of the said FCNR(B) deposit. The amount was credited to the loan account No.32/200 in the name of A.2. Out of this Rs.55,03,000/= an amount of Rs.15,02,200/= was credited to the loan account No.32/197 for its closure and the remaining amount of Rs.40,00,800/= was credited to the SB Account of A.2. All the relevant debit and credit vouchers were filled in and passed by A.1. A.2 also obtained a T.T on 4.1.201 itself for Rs.40 lakhs payable at Perumalmalai Branch of Central Bank of India, Kodaikkanal, where he opened another SB account on 4.1.2001. Subsequently various amounts were withdrawn in cash or by cheques issued by A.2. All the relevant debit and credit vouchers were filled in and passed by A.1. A.2 also obtained a T.T on 4.1.201 itself for Rs.40 lakhs payable at Perumalmalai Branch of Central Bank of India, Kodaikkanal, where he opened another SB account on 4.1.2001. Subsequently various amounts were withdrawn in cash or by cheques issued by A.2. (d) In order to prevent the depositor from coming to know the fraud perpetrated against his deposit, A.1 to A.4 had dishonestly and fraudulently sent a fake FCNR deposit receipt to the depositor which was held by him presuming it to be the original till June 2001. Subsequently, the petitioner herein convinced LW.1 to transfer the FCNR (B) deposit from Ooty Branch to Perumalmalai Branch and L.W.1 also sent the CNR (B) deposit receipt held by him believing it to be original to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch for its transfer to Perumalmalai Branch, Kodaikkanal. A.1 in criminal conspiracy with A.2 to A.4 caused disappearance of the said deposit receipt sent by LW.1 knowing fully well that it was a fake one since the genuine original FCNR (B) was lying with the Bank under lien. (e) One S.Kuppan Chetiar, a resident of Singapore, an NRI, transferred Rs.30 lakhs to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch by way of Demand Draft dated 12.3.2001 issued by Charminar Cooperative Bank for issue of NRNR (Non-resident Non-repatriable) deposit in his name for one year. When this was realised on 22.3.2001, A.1 in criminal conspiracy with A.2 and A.3, opened an MMDC (money Multiplier Deposit Certificate) dated 22.3.2001 for Rs.30 lakhs instead of NRNR deposit as demanded by the depositor. A.1 also dishonestly sanctioned a loan of Rs.27 lakhs on 27.3.201 in the name of the depositor S.Kuppan Chettiar against the security of the said MMDC deposit receipt without the knowledge and consent of the depositor and based on the forged signature of the deposit on the reverse side of MMDC deposit certificate. The entire loan amount of Rs.17 lakhs sanctioned by A.1 was transferred to the SB account of A.3. The entire loan amount of Rs.17 lakhs sanctioned by A.1 was transferred to the SB account of A.3. The relevant debit and credit vouchers were passed by A.1 A.3 on 27.3.2001 itself withdrew Rs.5 lakhs by way of cheque and issued another cheque for Rs.19,83,960/= towards the issue of two DDs favour one S.Raghunathan a Chartered Accountant in Chennai and one D.Thiruvengadam of Chennai for Rs.9,90,000/= each and later withdrew the remaining amount for his personal purposes. (f) The specific allegation against the revision petitioner herein is that in criminal conspiracy with A.1 to A.3 advised L.W.1 during May 2001 to transfer the maturity proceeds of one of his NRNR Cumulative Certificate with Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd,. Coimabtroe Branch to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch. L.W.1 unaware o the fraud perpetrated against his FCNR (B) in Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch transferred Rs.1 crore being the principal amount of his NRNR deposit maintained with Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., which matured on 2.6.2001 to the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch on the advise of A.4, the revision petitioner. A.1 in conspiracy with A.2 to A.4, on realisation of the 1 crore of rupees from Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., on 12.6.2001 misutlised the proceeds by crediting an amount of Rs.58,00,620/= to the demand loan account sanctioned to A.2 on 4.1.2001 for its closure and the remaining amount of Rs.41,99,380/= to the SB Account of A.2 on 12.6.2001. The relevant credit vouchers dated 12.6.2001 are prepared and passed by A.1. A fake MMDC dated 18.7.2001 for Rs. 1 crore to the depositor L.W.1 was issued. A.2 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with A.2 and A.3 issued a cheque dated 12.6.2001 for Rs.27,61,320 favouring A.3. The proceeds of this cheque were credited to the SB account of A.3 after duly passing relevant credit voucher by A.1 himself. A.3 on his part issued a cheque dated 2.6.2001 for Rs.27,61,320 for closure of the demand loan A/c.No.32/247 in the name of Kuppan Chettiar. The relevant credit slip dated 12.6.2001 crediting the amount to DL A/c.NO.32/247 is prepared and passed by A.1. A.3 on his part issued a cheque dated 2.6.2001 for Rs.27,61,320 for closure of the demand loan A/c.No.32/247 in the name of Kuppan Chettiar. The relevant credit slip dated 12.6.2001 crediting the amount to DL A/c.NO.32/247 is prepared and passed by A.1. (g) By the aforesaid acts, A.1 to A.4 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy during 2000-2001 cheated the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch to an extent of Rs.1 crore resulting in wrongful loss to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves which are punishable under Section 120B r/w.420 IPC, 201m, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w.13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 3. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.2/2003. On appearance of the accused, A.4, the revision petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No:8 of 2004 to discharge him from the case on the round that he is not involved in any manner in respect of the first two transactions, viz., FCNR(B) deposit receipt bearing No.UDHAGA/0436220 dated 27.12.2000 for USD 5,28,336.01 deposited by L.W.1 and MMDC bearing Registration No.940614, dated 22.3.2001 for Rs.30 lakhs deposited by one Kuppan Chettiar of Singapore who is L.W.2. In respect of the third transaction, in respect of FCNR(B) deposit made with Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch by L.W.1 for Rs.1 Crore the allegation against the petitioner is that in criminal conspiracy with A.1 to A.3 the petitioner advised L.W.1 to transfer the maturity proceeds of the deposit amount of Rs.1 Crore with Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore Branch to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch which was carried out by L.W.1. Thereafter, on realisation of the amount of Rs.1 Crore from Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd,. A.1 in conspiracy with A.2 to A.4 misutilised the proceeds by crediting an amount of Rs.58,00,620/= to the Demand Loan Account of A.2 for its closure and the remaining of Rs.41,89,380/= to the S.B.Account of A.2 on 12.6.2001. 4. According to the revision petitioner the statement of witnesses as well as the documents filed by the prosecution do not make out a prima facie case against this petitioner for any offence especially the alleged offence mention in the final report. Even according to the case of the prosecution the petitioner has not benefitted in any manner out of the said transactions. Even according to the case of the prosecution the petitioner has not benefitted in any manner out of the said transactions. As as per the statement of LW.1, the petitioner has acted only as an adviser to him for investing funds in India. Further LW.1 has stated about the manner in which he deposited the amount in Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch, especially his depositing the amount of Rs.1 Crore. LW.1 has stated that he had received the copy of MMDC receipt for Rs.1 Crore by Courier service. He further stated that even prior to that he had received a copy of the above said MMDC deposit by FAX from the petitioner herein with a note addressed to him that the receipt has already been despatched. L.W.1 further stated that he received one earlier FAX dated 13.7.2001 from the petitioner informing that the receipt from Kodaikanal Branch will be sent on Monday and also receipt of NRNR will be sent by Monday as A.1 was reaching on Monday. 5. According to the petitioner in spite of the evidence and materials available on records to show that various persons especially LW.15 Mr.Raghunathan and L.W.16 Mr.Thiruvengadam are the direct beneficiaries of the amount involved in the transactions but they have not been proceeded against, but they have been cited only as witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition for discharge. 6. The respondent filed a counter, gist of which is as follows:- (a) The transactions in this case arise out of criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused and it is incorrect to state that the transactions are different with each other. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition for discharge. 6. The respondent filed a counter, gist of which is as follows:- (a) The transactions in this case arise out of criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused and it is incorrect to state that the transactions are different with each other. As far as the first charge is concerned with regard to the deposit of USD 5,28,363.01, the evidence collected proved that it was A.4, the revision petitioner herein who advised LW.1 to transfer the maturity proceeds of FCNR deposited with Catholic Syrian Bank, Second Line Beach, Chennai, which was due for maturity on 20.12.2000, to the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch, and when L.W.1 did not receive the FCNR deposit for a long time, he spoke to the petitioner who was looking after his financial interest in India, the petitioner then assured to him that the FCNR Deposit Receipt would be received in due course, whereas in fact an FCNR(B) deposit for the amount was opened in the name of L.W.1 in the Ooty Branch and A.1 allowed an advance of Rs.15 lakhs on 29.12.2000 to A.2 on the strength of an alleged Power of Attorney, purported to have been issued by L.W.1. A.1 has also sanctioned another loan of Rs.55,03,000/= on 4.1.2001 against the same FCNR(B) deposit and credited the proceeds after adjusting the previous loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the SB Account of A.2. In spite of all these, the petitioner herein informed L.W.1 vide his letter dated 16.3.2001 that the receipt was sent to Mumbai Overseas Branch and the same would be sent within three days as the same was already despatched by Mumbai Overseas Branch. (b) A.4, the petitioner herein in criminal conspiracy with A.1 to A.3 had also sent a copy of the FCNR (B) deposit receipt dated 27.12.2000 by FAX to LW.1 on 3.4.2001, which is a fake one, while in fact the original of the said FCNR (B) was under lien with the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch for having sanctioned an advance fraudulently by A.1 against its security to A.2. It is also established that the FCNR (B) deposit receipt sent by the petitioner to L.W.1 by FAX did not contain marking of lien whereas the original FCNR(B) deposit receipt was marked with lien on 4.1.2001 and was lying with the Bank itself. It is also established that the FCNR (B) deposit receipt sent by the petitioner to L.W.1 by FAX did not contain marking of lien whereas the original FCNR(B) deposit receipt was marked with lien on 4.1.2001 and was lying with the Bank itself. Subsequently L.W.1 also received a fake FCNR (B) deposit receipt without marking of lien on it and presumed the same to be the original one. This proves the knowledge and involvement of the petitioner regarding the fake FCNR(B) deposit receipt sent to LW.1 over FAX to keep him under the impression that his FCNR(B) deposit receipt with the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch was safe. The endorsement made by L.W.1 on the FAX that "received by FAX from Mr.Ahuja" proves this fact. (c) Further, it is only the petitioner who advised LW.1 vide his FAX dated 21.6.2001 to transfer the said FCNR(B) deposit from Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch to Central Bank of India, Perumalmalai Branch, Kodaikkanal much ahead of its maturity date consequent to the transfer of A.1 from the said Ooty Branch. It was the petitioner who had sent by FAX a copy of the MMDC deposit receipt dated 18.7.2001 for Rs.1 Crore in the name of L.W.1 purported to have been issued by Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch which in fact was a fake one. When LW.1 informed that he wanted the bank to issue NRNR deposit and not MMDC, the petitioner vide his FAX dated 13.7.2001 informed that the NRNR deposit receipt would be sent soon after A.1 reaches by Monday whereas in fact the entire amount of Rs.1 Crore received from Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore on 12.6.2001 was misused by A.1 in criminal conspiracy with A.2 to A.4 by crediting an amount of Rs.58,00,620/= to the Demand Loan account of A.2 for its closure and credited the remaining amount of Rs.41,09,380/= into the SB Account of A.2. LW.1 believed the copies of deposit receipts received by him over FAX from the petitioner as genuine whereas they all turned out top be the copies of fake FCNR (B) and MMDC deposit receipts. Hence the investigation revealed the deep involvement of the petitioner herein and there are sufficient materials for framing charges against the petitioner. 7. LW.1 believed the copies of deposit receipts received by him over FAX from the petitioner as genuine whereas they all turned out top be the copies of fake FCNR (B) and MMDC deposit receipts. Hence the investigation revealed the deep involvement of the petitioner herein and there are sufficient materials for framing charges against the petitioner. 7. On hearing both sides, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Cases, Coimbatore found that there are prima facie case against the petitioner and therefore dismissed the discharge petition filed by him. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. 8. Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the petitioner, A.4 is only a financial advisor to various Non Resident Indian clients with regard to their investments and in such capacity he has advised L.W.1 to deposit his money in the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch for the purpose of getting better rate of interest and the allegation that he sent a fake deposit receipt by way of FAX in criminal conspiracy with A.1 to A.3 is not correct, because he himself was not aware that the FCNR(B) Deposit Receipt faxed by him to LW.1 is a fake one. Since A.4 has not obtained any benefit from the transactions or wrongful gain from the transactions, no case is made out against A.4, the petitioner herein. 9. Per contra Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Pubilc Prosecutor for CBI Cases would contend that only on the advice of A.4, the petitioner herein, L.W.1 transferred amount from Catholic Syrian Bank, Chennai to the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch and similarly even before the maturity of the amount, the same was again transferred from Ooty Branch to Perumalmalai Branch, because A.1 was transferred from Ooty Branch. 10. As far as transfer of USD.5,28,362.01 from Catholic Syrian Bank, Chennai to Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch is concerned, A.4 could have advised L.W.1 for better rate of interest. But why the same amount should be transferred to the same Central Bank of India from Ooty Branch to Perumalmalai Branch at Kodaikkanal is not explained by A.4, because both the Branches belong to the same Bank and the rate of interest is also the same. But why the same amount should be transferred to the same Central Bank of India from Ooty Branch to Perumalmalai Branch at Kodaikkanal is not explained by A.4, because both the Branches belong to the same Bank and the rate of interest is also the same. The transfer of the amount from Ooty Branch to Perumalmalai Branch at Kodaikkanal may be for the purpose of hiding the fact that a lien was created in the Fixed Deposit of LW.1 and when the further sum of Rs.1 Crore of LW.1 which was lying with Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore was transferred to the Central Bank of India, Ooty Branch, the entire amount has been misappropriated for the purpose of setting off the earlier loan availed by A.2 and for the expenses of A.2 and A.3. To hide the above transactions when LW.1 demanded why NRNR receipt was not issued to him, A.1 has sent a bogus MMDC receipt and the petitioner has also sent a copy of the said bogus MMDC receipt by FAX. Earlier when LW.1 questioned the petitioner as to why there is a delay in sending the Receipt, he has managed to satisfy LW1 that the receipt will be sent to him as soon as A.1 Branch Manager of Ooty Branch of the Bank reaches Ooty. 11. It is true that as per the evidence on record there is no proof that this petitioner obtained any benefit from these transactions. Whether this petitioner really conspired with A.1 to A.3 and in furtherance of the said conspiracy he advised LW.1 to transfer his funds to Ooty Branch of Central Bank of India and thereafter from Ooty Branch of the said Bank to Perumalmali Branch of Kodaikkanal to facilitate sanctioning of loan and payment to A.2 by A.1 and whether the petitioner really obtained any benefit are all matters which can be decided only by letting in evidence. The evidence of LW.1 is very strong on this aspect to raise grave suspicion against this petitioner, A.4. In a case of mere suspicion, an accused can be discharged. But when the suspicion is grave, naturally a prima facie case is made out and in such circumstances an accused cannot be discharged. Tonnes of suspicion are nothing in contrast with an ounce of proof. In a case of mere suspicion, an accused can be discharged. But when the suspicion is grave, naturally a prima facie case is made out and in such circumstances an accused cannot be discharged. Tonnes of suspicion are nothing in contrast with an ounce of proof. But this is not the stage to decide whether the accused have conspired together to commit the other offences is proved or not which can be decided only by letting in evidence. 12. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 820, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "27. Let us note the three pairs of Sections Shri Jethmalani has in mind. These are Sections 227 and 228 in so far as Sessions trial is concerned; Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases. They read as below:- "227. Discharge--If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therein, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge--(1)If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant cases instituted on a Police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of Sub section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 239. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of Sub section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 239. When accused shall be discharged-- If, upon considering the Police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 240. Framing of charge--(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 245. When accused shall be discharged--If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. 28. Before adverting to what was stated in Antulay Case(1986 SCC (Cri)256), let the view expressed in State of Karnataka V. L.Muniswamy (1977 SCC (Cri) 404) be noted. Therein Chandrachud,J., (as he then was) speaking for a three Judge Bench stated that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized. 29. As framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized. 29. What was stated in this regard in Sree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Case (199 SCC (Cri) 285) which was quoted with approval in paragraph 78 of State of West Bengal Vs.Mohd. Khalid (1959 SCC (Cri) 226), is that what the court has to see, while considering the question of framing the charge, is whether the material brought on record would reasonably connect eh accused with the crime. No more is required to be inquired into. 30. In Antulay Case, Bhagwati C.J., opined after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs of Sections, that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of "prima facie" Case has to be applied. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie Case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. In our view, a better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie Case against him exits, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. 31. Let us note the meaning of the word `presume'. In Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law `presume' means "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming", Stroud's Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which "A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged". In Law Lexicon by P.Ramathan Aiyer, the same quotation finds place at page 1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequently, a Case for framing of charge exists. In Law Lexicon by P.Ramathan Aiyer, the same quotation finds place at page 1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequently, a Case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. (emphasis supplied)" 13. In view of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision and as rightly held by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Cases, Coimbatore, there is prima facie case as against this petitioner,A.4, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Cases, Coimbatore, and hence this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps are also dismissed.