IMPORTANT POINT
If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. Per contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by the cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence then the charge can be quashed.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2)-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Charge of possessing assets disproportionate to known source of income-Quashment of charge by High Court-Legality of-While submitting charge sheet documents collected by investigating authorities withheld-Application by accused for production of documents-Rejection by trial Court -High Court directing investigating authority to produce documents and directing to trial Court to consider same while framing charge-Trial Court not considering documents in question while framing charge-High Court looking into materials and documents made available at stage of framing charges and discharging accused concluding charge could not be framed against accused-Documents in question income tax assessment orders, pertained to period much earlier to check period-Could not have been prepared in anticipation of case-No valid ground to upset High Court s order.
       Held : The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. Per contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by the cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence then the charge can be quashed. (Paras 7 and 11)
       In the instant case, the High Court having considered all the material including the documents produced by the prosecution itself, which were collected during the course of investigation, and on being prima facie satisfied taking the documents on their face value held that no offence was made out and as such no charge could be framed against the respondent. In this view, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court and passed the order discharging the respondent. The High Court in the order under appeal has elaborately considered the documents collected during the course of investigation and produced by the prosecution itself which were available at the time of framing charges. It may be added that most of the documents relate to the income-tax returns or income-tax assessment orders. All these documents pertain to the period prior to 26.3.1993. Some of them even relate to the year 1988. In the normal course the documents could not have been prepared in anticipation that the respondent would have to face such charges on a future date. The documents being the orders of assessment or return filed with the income-tax authorities on their face value supported the case of the respondent. The trial Court was bound to follow the directions given by the High Court earlier while ordering investigating authority to produce documents withheld by the investigating authority. The trial Court was bound to follow the directions given therein. Its failure to follow the directions resulted in framing charges against the respondent ignoring the documents, which on their face value supported the respondent. There was no bar to consider the material on record in the case on hand, which was collected during the course of investigation and produced before the court and particularly in view of the directions given earlier by the High Court. The High Court looking to the material and documents that were made available at the stage of framing charges on their face value in the light of the directions given earlier in Criminal Revision No. 337/97 and bearing in mind the position in law concluded that charges could not be framed against the respondent, consequently, set aside the order of trial Court and discharged the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the legal position stated above, we see no good reason or valid ground to upset the impugned order. (Paras 6, 12, 13 and 14)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-This petition is by the State of Madhya Pradesh directed against the order dated 10.11.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in criminal Revision No. 274/98 by which the charges framed against the respondent under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) were quashed.

2. The relevant and necessary facts to dispose of this petition are :

The respondent was working as a Road Transport Inspector in the Regional Office of the Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and is a public servant as such. A complaint under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act for the check period 25.9.1982 to 27.3.1993 was filed stating that he had acquired the property in excess of the known source of his income. During the investigation properties and assets belonging to his mother-in-law, father, brother and nephew were shown as assets of the respondent. The assets of his wife, who is an income-tax payer and a self-earning member, were also connected with the assets of the respondent. While submitting charge sheet several important documents, which were collected during the course of investigation, were withheld. According to the respondent the said documents supported him. If those documents were considered even prima facie there was no scope to frame charges against him. At the time of framing charges the respondent made an application seeking production of these documents in court before proceeding to frame charge. But the said application was rejected stating that for the purpose of framing charges only the documents forwarded to the court under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. need to be considered. Hence he filed Criminal Revision No. 337/97 in the High Court. The said Revision Petition was disposed of by the order dated 8.9.1997 in the following terms :-

"In the result the revision is allowed, the order impugned is set-aside and it is directed that the documents made available by the accused during investigation be produced and may be taken into consideration by the court below while framing the charge."

3. Thereafter the trial Court framed charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.1988 framing charges in the Special Case No. 26/96 by the Special Judge, Indore, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 274/98. The High Court by order dated 10.11.1998 accepted the case of the respondent, set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Indore, framing charges and discharged the respondent. In these circumstances the State has come up in this petition challenging the said order of the High Court.

4. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that at the stage of framing charges for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act the Trial Judge was not required to consider documents like income-tax return and income-tax orders and calculation chart of the accounts; the documents like income-tax assessment orders and calculation chart submitted by the respondent ought not to have been accepted at the stage of framing charges without proving them and that those documents could be proved during trial by the author as per the provisions of Evidence Act. He referred to and relied on the decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Ors.1.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the order impugned in this petitioner is unassailable; the trial Court committed manifest error in not considering the documents collected during the course of investigation though produced late but before framing charges, by the investigating agency itself pursuant to the order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 337/97 which prima facie supported the respondent; and that the High Court having considered all the material that was available at the time of framing charges rightly set aside the order of the trial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1106

Cases Referred (2)