Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 – Application for discharge – Principles to be considered:
Held: The court must proceed on an assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the said material to determine whether the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged – It is necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed – At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material – Nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for of framing the charge – If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, he would be discharged – Furthermore, the defence of the accused is not to be looked into – Submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. [Para 10, 7]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 227 – Right of the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge: Held: At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same – No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge – Trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only – If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage – Main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged u/s. 227 is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. [Para 8, 9] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Power and jurisdiction of higher court under – Exercise of:
Held: The Court is vested with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court for satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case – Object is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. [Para 13]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 – Application for discharge – Filing of, by the accused on the ground that the investigating officer failed to consider the written explanation offered by him with supporting documents, that the conclusion reached by the sanctioning authority that the accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income is erroneous and that the charge-sheet material do not reveal any circumstances or evidence to arrive at the said conclusion – Rejected by the trial court, however, the High Court allowed application filed u/s. 397/401 – Interference with: Held: High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial court – Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency which is not legally permissible – High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge – Charge-sheet has been filed after taking into consideration the written submissions filed by the accused before the Investigating Authority which included the documentary evidences tendered by the accused – High Court proceeded to examine the pros and cons of defense by weighing the defence-evidence and probabilities of the conclusion – Trial judge noticed that explanation provided by the accused pertaining to purchase of shop from the loan borrowed and paid by the accused was outside the check period and hence the explanation provided by accused is a mere eye wash which has to be thrashed out during the course of the trial – Thus, the impugned judgment setting aside the trial court order is set aside. [Para 15-18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan And Others (2014) 11 SCC 709 : [2014] 1 SCR 135; State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 189; State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni (2000)
6 SCC 338; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 : [2012]
7 SCR 988 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.