2022 Supreme(SC) 747

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., J.K. MAHESHWARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Pushpendra Kumar Sinha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1333 of 2022 [Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No.3440 of 2021]
Decided on : 24-08-2022

IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – At the time of framing of charges, probative value of material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge Court must apply it’s judicial mind on material placed on record and must be satisfied that commission of offence by accused was possible.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 239, 397 and 401 – Allegations of malpractice and financial irregularity – Dismissal of application for discharge – Prima facie, there is nothing which affixes culpability or constitutes commission of offence including mens rea on part of Appellant – Attempt has been made to implicate Appellant for decisions in which prima facie, he did not have any role to play, nor do his acts establish any culpability regarding alleged offences – If at all there were issues with respect to maintainability of award due to provisions of contract, particularly as per contended negative covenant, same should have been highlighted by AG, especially when his opinion was expressly sought – AG being highest law officer of a State, is competent to advise State on legal matters after due diligence, taking into consideration all relevant factors and material – It cannot be inferred that Appellant led AG and JSEB to implement award with fraudulent or dishonest intention to cause loss to JSEB and benefit to RPCL – During investigation, no incriminating material or money was seized from house of the Appellant – It is not a case where allegations of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets have been successfully found by prosecution against Appellant – Sufficient grounds casting grave suspicion on Appellant, do not exist – Ingredients of alleged offences cannot be prima facie Established against Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with funds of JSEB nor he had fraudulently or dishonestly deceived senior officials of JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL or any wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets has been found against Appellant – Ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out against Appellant – Appellant discharged in criminal proceedings. (Paras 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 239 and 240 – Discharge of accused – At the time of framing of charges, probative value of material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge Court must apply it’s judicial mind on material placed on record and must be satisfied that commission of offence by accused was possible – Court has limited scope of enquiry and has to see whether any prima facie case against accused is made out or not – At the same time, Court is also not expected to mirror prosecution story, but to consider broad probabilities of case, weight of prima facie evidence, documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:

Appellant has assailed the final judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 1057 of 2018, by which the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau dismissing the application for discharge filed by Appellant under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Special Case No. 02 of 2011 has been affirmed. The criminal case was registered against Appellant and others for commission of offences under Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Findings of Court:

High Court erred in refusing to exercise revisional powers vested in it under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. and dismissing the criminal revision preferred by Appellant.

Result : Appeal allowed.