Trial Court not to proceed on assumption in case against Dayanidhi Maran, Supreme Court

In a case relating to the Telephone Exchange Scam involving former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, the Supreme Court today said that the framing of charges by the trial court must not be based on the assumption that material for the same exists..The Court said that the trial court must consider the question of whether or not any such material exists that facilitates framing of charges against the accused persons..The petition was filed by one of the accused persons through advocate Raj Kamal. Senior Counsel Maninder Singh appeared for the petitioner. The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna..In the instant case, after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against the accused persons in the case, a Special CBI Court had discharged all the accused in March 2018. That decision was challenged by the CBI before the Madras High Court. The High Court directed the trial court, in July 2018, to frame charges against the accused persons and conclude the trial within a period of twelve months..This judgment of the Madras High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had disposed of the matter expressing no inclination to interfere with the Madras High Court judgment. The Supreme Court had, however, stated that the accused persons can urge their contentions before the trial court..The Court had also said that the trial shall be conducted without being influenced by the observations of the High Court..In August 2018, the trial court passed an order framing charges against all the accused persons. This order was challenged by the accused before the High Court on the ground that there existed no material for framing charges. It was dismissed by the High Court in November 2018..Aggrieved by the same, one of the accused in the case approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s decision. It was argued by Maninder Singh that the trial court proceeded to frame charges against the accused on the “assumption” that there exists material for doing so..A modification of the High Court’s order was prayed for by the petitioner to the effect that the trial court must consider whether or not material exists on the basis of which charges can be framed and justified..The Supreme Court disposed of the petition today observing that the trial court must consider whether any material exists on the basis of which charges can be framed and will not proceed on any assumption of the same.