State Represented By Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam vs Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

22 May 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No(s). 2784-2794 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Pankaj Mithal, Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti

Citation

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 988 : 2025 INSC 758

Acts & Sections

CrPC Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 IPC

Issue for consideration

Whether the two letters could have been looked at or relied upon by the Special Court for exercising its jurisdiction u/s.239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.239 – Discharge – Material to be relied upon – FIR registered by CBI, charges filed u/ss.120B r/w. 420, 468, 471, IPC and s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), PC Act alleging that the accused conspired to purchase cotton at lower prices, hoarded these cotton stocks and resold it to Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) at higher MSP rates through benami farmers, causing wrongful loss to CCI and wrongful gain to the accused persons – Accused persons filed petition u/s.239 and inter alia relied on letters dtd. 08.01.2007 addressed by the CBI to the CCI and the reply of CCI dated 31.01.2007 stating that there was no loss caused to CCI – Accused were discharged relying on the letter dtd. 31.01.2007 – Interference with:

Held: The discharge was ordered not by referring to any of the situations referred in s.239, but by relying on the documents made available by the accused – The procedure followed by the special court and confirmed by the High Court is illegal and contrary to the binding precedent – The passing remark by the High Court that there is no material for cheating and forgery belies the existence of allegations and documents – For discharge, the special court and the High Court ought to have considered the chargesheet and list of documents, in the background of allegations made against the accused – However, they considered the material invited at the instance of the defence for ordering discharge – Discretionary limit as set out u/s.239 not complied with – Impugned orders set aside, discharge petitions filed by the accused dismissed – Special court to exercise its jurisdiction in terms of s.239 uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. [Paras 27, 28] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.239 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of discretion – Duty of Magistrate – Discussed. [Paras 25.1-25.3, 26-26.3]

Judgment S.V.N. Bhatti, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The criminal appeals arise from the common order dated 27.12.2021 in Criminal RC No. 3388/2017 and ten other cases in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The prosecution/CBI is the Appellant in the batch of appeals. 3. On 27.06.2006, the CBI, Visakhapatnam registered FIR RC No. 11(A)/2006-CBI/VSP under sections 120B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’). The registration of crime was against one, Rayapati Subba Rao/A-1 and a fe

View Subscription Plans →