New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) A Delhi court has discharged former MP D P Yadav in an alleged online betting case holding no prima facie material to frame charges against him.
Additional chief judicial magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia was hearing the case against Yadav and others, booked under IPC and the Gambling Act aside from the Information Technology Act.
According to the prosecution, a gambling racket, via a website “GAME”, was unearthed pursuant to a raid on the intervening night of August 26 and 27, 2015, leading to the arrest of 14 persons and seizure of Rs 13.24 lakh in cash.
The prosecution alleged some accused persons posed as government officials and deceived people by portraying the website was legal, and during the custodial interrogation, one of the accused disclosed he worked for Yadav, who received a 40 per cent cut.
Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Rishabh Bhati and Rehan Khan represented Yadav.
In an order dated September 8, the court said, “Record file was perused and it is apparent that there is no material on record to prove the proximity of accused 19, D P Yadav, with respect to the gambling in the present case.” It said there was not a single eyewitness or a witness who deposed Yadav himself appeared or had been represented.
The court, noting the depositions, said Yadav’s name was taken up for protection and to inculcate fear among their rivals.
“There is substance in the argument of the counsel for accused Rajiv Mohan that mere call detail record (CDR) will not suffice for the framing of charge and that too, as this court observes, that there is no recorded conversation on record to that effect.” The judge added, “In the absence of the contents of the conversation, CDR alone cannot be sufficient to establish complicity in the crime.” Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that charges could be framed against Yadav, based on the disclosure statements of two accused, the court said, “It is well settled law that on the basis of the disclosure statement of coaccused, charge cannot be framed and that too when the coaccused have been discharged.” “Mere suspicion,” the court said, “will not afford ground for framing of charges against him, rather it has to be grave suspicion to enable the court to frame the charges.” PTI MNR MNR AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.