![](https://gumlet.assettype.com/barandbench%2F2022-08%2Fed4bf2ee-f00c-4781-b495-692b2acbe48e%2FDELHI__WEB_PAGE_1600x900.jpg?w=1200&auto=format%2Ccompress&ogImage=true&enlarge=true)
Justice Menon also found it strange that the trial court thought it appropriate to refer to Section 315 (accused to be competent witness) CrPC rather than to Section 319 of the CrPC that empowered the court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offence during the course of trial, after the submission of the chargesheet.
According to the court, the trial court record did not disclose 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… 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,” the order held.
Source: Barandbench