Asim Shariff vs National Investigation Agency

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

1 July 2019

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi

Citation

[2019] 8 S.C.R. 799 : 2019 INSC 709

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 227 – Discharge under – Sought by appellant-accused alongwith other accused – From the charges u/ss. 120B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 r/w s. 34 IPC; u/ss. 3 and 27 of Arms Act; and u/ss. 16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Application dismissed by trial court – Dismissal order affirmed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: While examining the discharge application u/s. 227, court is expected to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether prima facie case is made out against the accused – The facts of the present case persuaded the trial court to arrive at a conclusion that prima facie case of alleged offences were made out, truth and veracity of which was to be examined during the course of trial – Order of courts below do not call for interference.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. Thus, while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record. [Para 19] [807-E-G]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RASTOGI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against whom a criminal case bearing no. RC 04/16-NIA-HYD came to be registered along with four other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC; Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 15,16,17,18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter being referred to as “UAP Act”). 3. After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before th

View Subscription Plans →