Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 7 – Offence relating to public servant being bribed – On facts, filing of chargesheet against the accused for the offence u/s. 7 – Special Judge on basis of the transcript of conversation recorded between the complainant and the accused, found that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence u/s. 7, and framed the charges against the accused for the said offence – Revision Application thereagainst – High Court discharged the accused of the alleged offence u/s. 7 – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – While discharging the accused, the High Court exceeded in its revisional jurisdiction and acted beyond the scope of s. 227/239 Cr.P.C. – High Court considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at that stage was not permissible at all – At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible – At this stage, even as per s. 7, even an attempt constitutes an offence – Thus, the High Court erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application – Order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside, and that of the Special Judge restored. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. While discharging the accused, the High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. The High Court went into the merits of the case and considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the discharge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all. The Special Judge rightly held that at the stage of framing of the charge, it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered. After considering the material on record including the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused, the Special Judge having found that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, framed the charge against the accused for the said offence. The High Court was required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. Therefore, the High Court erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application. Furthermore, this Court is not entering into the merits of the case and/or merits of the transcript as the same is required to be considered at the time of trial. Defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of the charge and/or at the stage of discharge application. [Para 11, 12][167-B-E; G-H]
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court discharging the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is unsustainable in law and is quashed and set aside, and the order passed by the Special Judge framing charge against the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is restored. [Para 13][168-A-B]
P. Vijayan v. State of Kerana (2010) 2 SCC 398:[2010]
2 SCR 78; State of Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC
515 : [2019] 8 SCR 713 – relied on.
Srilekha Sentil Kumar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai (2019) 7 SCC 82; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC
148 : [2019] 8 SCR 799 – 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.