Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
ss. 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.120-B IPC – Appellantsaccused were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120-B, 409, 420,
465 and 471 IPC and ss.13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w s.120-B IPC – High Court discharged the accused u/ss. 120-B, 409, 420, 465 and 471 IPC, while upholding the charges u/ss. 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w s.120-B IPC – On appeal, held: Considering the facts of the case in a holistic manner, there was no error in framing charges as suggested by the High Court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.227 – Framing of charges – Court while framing charges should apply the prima facie standard – The standard depends on facts of each case – A prima facie case against the accused is said to be made out when the probative value of the evidence on all the essential elements in the charge taken as a whole is such that it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such essential elements or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen – However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and the evidence cannot be weighed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A court while framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should apply the prima facie standard. Although the application of this standard depends on facts and circumstance in each case, a prima facie case against the accused is said to be made out when the probative value of the evidence on all the essential elements in the charge taken as a whole is such that it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such essential elements or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. [Para 12] [827-A-C]
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11 SCR 669; State v. A. Arun Kumar (2015) 2 SCC 417 : [2014] 11 SCR 319; State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S. Selvi and Ors. (2018) 1 SCALE 5 – referred to.
2. In the present case, it cannot be said that no case can be made out against the accused-appellants. The alleged Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 were issued without the approval of Cabinet and by violation of rules. Looking at the facts of the case in a holistic manner, it is necessary to go into the aspect of thorough examination of merits of the case, particularly when the issue is still at the stage of framing of charges only. There is no error in framing charges, as suggested by the High Court, when presumably the material on record obligated the Court to do so. [Para 13] [827-E-F]
MRF Limited v. Manohar Parrikar & Others (2010) 11 SCC 374 : [2010] 5 SCR1081; Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi (2003) 5 SCC 257 : [2003]
3 SCR 1118 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.