Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.239, 397, 401 – Discharge of accused – Respondent No.1 was serving as Motor Vehicle Inspector during the check period – Respondent No. 2 is his wife who is a commerce graduate and is claiming to have a separate source of income and paying the income tax from 1990 onwards – FIR registered against Respondent No.1 for offences u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act r/w s.109 IPC – During investigation, role of his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 surfaced as an abettor – Charge sheet filed in the Court of the Special Judge – Respondents filed petition u/s.239 for discharge – Special Judge rejected the petition and held that there was a prima facie case against the accused persons to put them to trial for alleged offence and charges levelled against them cannot be said to be groundless so as to discharge them from prosecution – Respondents filed revision applications before High Court – High Court discharged the respondents – On appeal, held: s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him – legal effect of s.13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused – It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands – The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation – accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of s.239 – The circumstances emerging from the record of the case indicate the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence – It cannot be said that the charge against the accused persons was groundless – Special Court directed to frame charges against the accused persons and put them to trial – Penal Code,1860 – s.109 - Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e).
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Known sources of income – Defined – It refers to the sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The onus or burden is on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets found to be possessed by the public servant.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Whether the investigating officer before filing FIR should consider explanation offered by the accused – Held: The accused public servant does not have a right to be afforded a chance to explain the alleged disproportionate assets to the investigating officer before the filing of a chargesheet, a similar right cannot be granted to the accused before the filing of an FIR by making a preliminary inquiry mandatory. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Stage of charge framing – Approach of Court – Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged – Court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.239 – Prima facie case u/s.239 – If the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused – The word ‘groundless’ means that there must be no ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence and that the materials placed before the Court do not make out or are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused – If no prima facie case regarding the commission of any offence is made out, it would amount to a charge being groundless.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Revisional powers of High Court – Ambit and scope of – Held: Revisional power can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected – The revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner – Revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power – A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court – This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged – It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The expression “known sources of income” refers to the sources known to the prosecution, the expression “for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account” refers to the onus or burden on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets found to be possessed by the public servant. This burden is on the accused as the said facts are within his special knowledge. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is a procedural Section which seeks to define the expression “known sources of income” as sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused. The explanation applies and relates to the mode and manner of investigation to be conducted by the prosecution, it does away w ith the requirement and necessity of the prosecution to have an open, wide and rowing investigation and enquire into the alleged sources of income which the accused may have. It curtails the need and necessity of the prosecution to go into the alleged sources of income which a public servant may or possibly have but are not legal or have not been declared. The undeclared alleged sources are by their very nature are expected to be known to the accused only and are within his special knowledge. The effect of the explanation is to clarify and reinforce the existing position and understanding of the expression “known sources of income” i.e. the expression refers to sources known to the prosecution and not sources known to the accused. The second part of the explanation does away with the need and requirement for the prosecution to conduct an open ended or rowing enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the accused to the authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. No further investigation is required by the prosecution to find out the known sources of income of the accused public servant. [Para 41][666-G-H; 667-A-E]
2. In trial of a warrant case, instituted on a police report, the provisions for discharge are to be governed as per the terms of Section 239 which provide that a direction for discharge can be made only for reasons to be recorded by the court where it considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. As per the provisions under Section 239 what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not that a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offences alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of that offence, and it is only in a case where the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless, he is to discharge the accused after recording his reasons for doing so. Section 239 envisages a careful and objective consideration of the question whether the charge against the accused is groundless or whether there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. What Section 239 prescribes is not, therefore, an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision to the advantage of the accused, and its breach is not permissible under the law. But if the Judge, upon considering the record, including the examination, if any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is “ground for presuming” that the accused has committed the offence triable under the chapter, he is required by Section
240 to frame in writing a charge against the accused. The order for the framing of the charge is also not an empty or routine formality. It is of a far reaching nature, and it amounts to a decision that the accused is not entitled to discharge under Section 239, that there is,ground for presuming that he has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX and that he should be called upon to plead guilty to it and be convicted and sentenced on that plea, or face the trial. [Paras 59 & 60][677-D-H; 678-A-C]
3. Section 239 has to be read along with Section 240 of the CrPC. If the Magistrate finds that there is prima facie evidence or the material against the accused in support of the charge,he may frame charge in accordance with Section 240 of the CrPC. But if he finds that the charge (the allegations or imputations) made against the accused does not make out a prima facie case and does not furnish basis for framing charge, it will be a case of charge being groundless, so he has no option but to discharge the accused. Where the Magistrate finds that taking cognizance of the offence itself was contrary to any provision of law, like Section 468 of the CrPC, the complaint being barred by limitation, so he cannot frame the charge, he has to discharge the accused. Indeed, in a case where the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence without taking note of Section 468 of the CrPC, the most appropriate stage at which the accused can plead for his discharge is the stage of framing the charge. He need not wait till completion of trial. The Magistrate will be committing no illegality in considering that question and discharging the accused at the stage of framing charge if the facts so justify.The real test for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless under Section 239 of the CrPC is that whether the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever, the accused should be discharged under Section 239 of the CrPC. The trial court will have to consider, whether the materials relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant for the purpose of framing of the charge, if unrebutted, make out any case at all.[Paras 68 & 69][680-D-H; 681-A]
4. The revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure. [Para 76][683-F-G]
5. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of the CrPC. At the stage of Section
239 CrPC, the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless.[Para 80][684-F-H; 685-A]
6. The circumstances emerging from the record of the case, prima facie, indicate the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence. Having regard to the materials on record, it cannot be said that the charge against the accused persons is groundless. There are triable issues in the matter. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions.The impugned orders passed by the High Court discharging the accused persons from the prosecution are hereby set aside. The Special Court shall frame charge against the accused persons in accordance with law and put them to trial. [Paras 81 & 82][685-B-D]
State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra
Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199 : [1981] 3 SCR 675; N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A.P. 2009 Crl.L.J. 1767; Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H.
Vijayalakshmi and Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 : [1991] 3 SCR 189; Onkar Nath Mishra and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2008) 2 SCC 561 : [2007] 13 SCR 716; State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 189; State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338; Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2013) 11 SCC 476 : [2012] 10 SCR 1034; Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545, Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 SC 52 : [1980] 1 SCR 323; Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2001) 9 SCC 631 – relied on.
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC
568 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 460; State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan and Others (2014) 11 SCC 709 : [2014] 1 SCR 135; Jagan M. Seshadriv. State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 9 SCC 639; Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 464 : [1964] 4 SCR 630; C.D.S. Swami v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7 : [1960] 1 SCR 461; V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI AIR 1980 SC 962 : [1980] 2 SCR 380; K. Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (2000) 8 SCC 547; State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M. R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 : [2019] 8 SCR 713; Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 : [2018] 2 SCR 1045 – 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.