1. Alleged criminal conspiracy by public servants to issue power rebate notifications without cabinet approval to provide wrongful gains to companies, causing loss to the public exchequer. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 184
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Mauvin Godinho - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2011
With
M/s Marmagoa Steel Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2011
T. Nagarajan - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2011
Katreddi Venkata Sahaya Krishnakumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2011
M/s Glass Fibre Division - Appellant
(A Division of Binani Zinc Ltd.) presently known as M/s Goa Glass Fibre Ltd.
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2011
Decided On : 17-01-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Framing of charge depends upon satisfaction of the court about prima facie existence of the facts.
Framing of charge depends upon satisfaction of the court about prima facie existence of the facts.
Subject
Criminal Law - Framing of Charges
Act Referred
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 227 – Framing of charge – When prima facie case against the accused is made out – When probative value of the evidence taken as a whole is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts – However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as in a trial. (Para 12)
(2010) 9 SCC 368; (2015) 2 SCC 417; (2018) 1 Scale 5 – Relied upon
(2010) 11 SCC 374; (2003) 5 SCC 257 – Referred
Facts of the case:
A Notification dated 30thSeptember, 1991 was issued by the Government of Goa, duly approved by the Cabinet, according to which those industrial units who apply for bona fide use of High Tension or Low Tension power supply to their industrial units would be eligible for a rebate of 25% in their tariff for a period of five years.
The Government of Goa, during the tenure of accused No. 1 as Minister of Power, with the consent of Cabinet, issued another Notification dated 31-03-1995 cancelling the earlier Notification dated 30-09-1991 without assigning any reason for its cancellation. Afterwards, another Notification dated 15-5-1996 was issued, without approval of the Cabinet introducing another category of ‘Extra High Tension’ power supply and after that one more Notification dated 01-08-1996 was issued, again without Cabinet approval, restoring the benefit of 25% rebate, at the instance of accused No. 1, only to benefit accused nos. 6 & 7 Companies.
Acting upon a complaint lodged by an M.L.A., the State levelled allegations against the accused individuals that by entering into a criminal conspiracy they provided wrongful gains to both the appellant Companies (Accused Nos. 6 & 7) and favored the two Companies for availing 25% rebate on power tariff by illegal means and thereby caused huge loss of Rs.4,52,77,856/- to the exchequer of Government of Goa.
The Special Judge, Panaji framed charges against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC and also under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The High Court discharged the appellants from the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC. However, the High Court observed that there is sufficient prima facie material against the accused for framing charges against them under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 120-B, IPC.
Finding of the Court:
There is no illegality in the impugned order.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim political vendetta and lack of prima facie evidence; State contends abuse of official position and conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the exchequer. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court found that prima facie material exists regarding notifications issued without cabinet approval and in violation of rules, justifying the framing of charges. (Para 13 )
4. Framing charges under Section 227 CrPC requires a prima facie standard where evidence is sufficient to induce belief in the existence of essential elements of the charge. (Para 12 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court order upholding charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC affirmed. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the legal standard applied by courts when framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Courts must apply a prima facie standard. A case is made out when the probative value of the evidence is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the essential elements of the charge or consider their existence so probable that a prudent man would act upon that supposition. (Para 12 )
7. To what extent can a court examine evidence during the stage of framing charges?
At the stage of framing charges, the court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if it were conducting a full trial. (Para 12 , 13 )
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Ramana, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals, by way of special leave, are filed by the appellants against a common order dated 26th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 3, 10, 19, 21 and 22 of 2007, whereby the High Court while setting aside the charges framed by the learned Special Judge, Panaji against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465 and 471, IPC and directed to frame charges against them under Sections 13 (1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B, IPC.
2. In a nutshell, the genesis of the dispute in all these appeals pertains to a Notification dated 30thSeptember, 1991 issued by the Government of Goa, duly approved by the Cabinet, according to which those industrial units who apply for bona fide use of High Tension or Low Tension power supply to their industrial units would be eligible for a rebate of 25% in their tariff for a period of five years. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2011 (Accused No. 1) was the Minister of Power for the State of Goa during the period 22-12-1994 to 29-07-1998 whereas the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2011 (Accused No. 2) was also a public servant at that time being Chief Electrical Engineer. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were Managing Director and Executive Director, respectively, of the appellant Company in Criminal Appeal 314 of 2011 (Accused No. 6), while the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2011 (Accused No. 5) was the General Manager of appellant Company in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2011 (Accused No. 7).
3. The Government of Goa, during the tenure of accused No. 1 as Minister of Power, with the consent of Cabinet, issued another Notification dated 31-03-1995 cancelling the earlier Notification dated 30-09-1991 without assigning any reason for its cancellation. Afterwards, it is alleged that another Notification dated 15-5-1996 was issued, without approval of the Cabinet introducing another category of ‘Extra High Tension’ power supply and after that one more Notification dated 01-08-1996 was issued, again without Cabinet approval, restoring the benefit of 25% rebate, at the instance of accused No. 1, only to benefit accused nos. 6 & 7 Companies.
4. Acting upon a complaint lodged by an M.L.A., the State levelled allegations against the accused individuals that by entering into a criminal conspiracy they provided wrongful gains to both the appellant Companies (Accused Nos. 6 & 7) and favored the two Companies for availing 25% rebate on power tariff by illegal means and thereby caused huge loss of Rs.4,52,77,856/- to the exchequer of Government of Goa.
5. Taking note of the allegations levelled against the accused, the Special Judge, Panaji by order dated 8thDecember, 2006 framed charges against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC and also under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The aggrieved appellants approached the High Court by way of Criminal Revision Applications. The High Court on the analysis of facts, arrived at the conclusion that the facts of the case do not disclose an offence of cheating and there was no offence of criminal breach of trust. Accordingly, the appellants were discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC. However, the High Court observed that there is sufficient prima facie material against the accused for framing charges against them under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 120-B, IPC. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused-appellants are before us in these appeals.
6. We have heard Mr. M.L. Varma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.315/2011, Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2011, Ms. As
