Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
State Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police - Appellant
Versus
R. Soundirarasu Etc. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1452 – 1453 OF 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 3445-3446 of 2019)
Decided On : 05-09-2022
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income – Discharge from trial on the ground of lack of any prima facie case – Undeclared alleged sources are by their very nature are expected to be known to accused only and are within his special knowledge – Prosecution can rely upon information furnished by accused to authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant – No further investigation is required by prosecution to find out known sources of income of accused public servant – Expression “known source of income” is not synonymous with words “for which public servant cannot satisfactorily account” – The two expressions connote and have different meaning, scope and requirements – Since accused public servant does not have a right to be afforded a chance to explain alleged Disproportionate Assets to investigating officer before filing of a charge-sheet, a similar right cannot be granted to accused before filing of FIR by making preliminary inquiry mandatory. (Paras 41, 42 and 43)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240 – Discharge from trial – Primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is test of existence of a prima facie case – At this stage, probative value of materials on record is not to be gone into – Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of materials on record – Court is not required to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused – It is only in a case where Magistrate considers charge to be groundless, he is to discharge accused after recording his reasons for doing so – What Section 239 prescribes is not an empty or routine formality – It is a valuable provision to advantage of accused and its breach is not permissible under law – Order for framing of charge is also not an empty or routine formality – It is of a far-reaching nature and it amounts to a decision that accused is not entitled to discharge under Section 239. (Paras 51, 55, 58, 59 and 60)
(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 239 – Possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income – Discharge from trial – Obligation to discharge accused under Section 239 arises when Magistrate considers charge against accused to be "groundless" – No detailed evaluation of materials or meticulous consideration of possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage – This would not be the stage for weighing pros and cons of all implications of materials, nor for sifting materials placed by prosecution – High Court has acted completely beyond settled parameters which govern power to discharge accused from prosecution – Case put up by prosecution cannot be termed as “groundless” – Accused might have made statements before investigating officer as to his alleged sources of income, but same, strictly, would not be evidence in the case – It is for accused to account satisfactorily for money/assets in his hands – Accused cannot make attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. – At the stage of Section 239 of Cr.P.C., Court has to only look into prima facie case and decide whether case put up by prosecution is groundless – Circumstances emerging from record of case, prima facie, indicate involvement of accused persons in alleged offence – If there are triable issues, Court is not expected to go into veracity of rival versions – Impugned orders passed by High Court discharging accused persons from prosecution set aside – Special Court shall now proceed to frame charge against accused persons in accordance with law and put them to trial. (Paras 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Revisional jurisdiction – 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 – Revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power – Revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of material on record as it is undertaken by trial court or appellate court – This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to continuance of proceedings or if facts as stated in charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute offence for which accused has been charged – It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure. (Para 76)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem District, Tamil Nadu and are directed against two judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Madras dated 27.04.2017 allowing the criminal revision applications preferred by the respondents herein (original accused persons) discharging them from prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Only question that falls for consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in discharging both the accused from the charges levelled against them?
Findings of Court:
Observations made by this Court in this judgment shall not be construed as final expressions of innocence or guilt of the accused persons. The guilt or innocence of the accused persons shall be determined by the trial court on the basis of evidence that may be led by both the prosecution and defence.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Yes, the judgement explicitly states that at the discharge stage, the court’s role is limited to assessing whether the material on record, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case. The court emphasizes that it is not required to go deep into the probative value of the evidence or to conduct a detailed inquiry into the merits of the case at this stage. The primary task is to determine whether there is a sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, based on the materials presented by the prosecution. If such a ground exists, the court should frame the charge and proceed with the trial. This principle is clearly articulated and reiterated throughout the judgement. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. These appeals are at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem District, Tamil Nadu and are directed against the two judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Madras dated 27.04.2017 allowing the criminal revision applications preferred by the respondents herein (original accused persons) discharging them from the prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “Act 1988”) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The Respondents in these appeals are husband and wife. The Respondent No.1 - R. Soundirarasu at the relevant point of time was serving as a Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade 1) at Namakkal during the check period, i.e., from 01.01.2002 to 31.03.2004. The Respondent No. 2, namely, Suguna is the wife of the Respondent No. 1.
5. The Respondent No. 2 is a commerce graduate and claims to be having a separate source of income. She was a partner in a partnership firm running in the name of S.K. Mat Industries along with one R. Kumar w.e.f. 23.10.1993. The partnership came to be dissolved on 31.03.2003, and, thereafter she continued as a sole proprietor.
6. It is the case of the Respondent No. 2 that she has been paying the income tax from 1990 onwards and her IT Returns are being scrutinized by the appropriate authorities.
7. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered against the Respondent No. 1 herein dated 19.09.2005 at the Police Station, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, District Salem for the offences under the Act 1988 as enumerated above.
8. For better and effective adjudication of the present appeals, we deem it necessary to reproduce the entire FIR as under:
“Column No. 12 in FIR Cr. No.9/AC/2005/SL/SU
Tr. R. Sundararasu was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-1 at the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Namakkal, Rasipuram and Sankari from March 98 to May 2000 to July 2002 and September 2002 to September2004 respectively and again in Namakkal from 27.09.2004. He is a Public Servant as defined u/s 2 (C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused Tr. R. Sundararasu, Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-1 hailed from an ordinary agricultural family. He is a second son to his parents. Tr. Ramasamy and Tmt. Krishnammal. He has got diploma in Mechanical Engineering and got B.E., degree by attending evening classes. He got married one Suguna D/o Tr. Duraisamy of Kavai on 12.2.90. He has got one son by name Sarankumar who is studying VIIth standard in Holy Matriculation School, Salem.
On receipt of credible information that the accused has acquired and he is in possession of assets in the form of house sites, lands, house building etc in his name and in the name of his wife and father-in-law, worth more than his known sources of income, a preliminary verification made, during which the following information has come to notice.
As on 1.1.2002, the accused is found to have been in possession of assets in his name and in the name of his wife Tmt. Suguna, gold jewels, Silver ornaments, household articles etc. by way of gift and purchase etc. all worth about Rs. 3,75,250.00.
As on 29.2.2004, the accused is found to have been in possession of properties and pecuniary resources in the name of his wife Smt. Suguna, his father-in-law Thiru.Duraisamy and his minor son Sarankumar of a total value of Rs. 18,41,680.00. These include, a part from the properties and pecuniary resources in his possession as on 1.1.2002. Additionally acquired properties and pecuniary resources such as House
Framing of charge – Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused.
(1) No provision in Cr.P.C. grants any right to accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge.(2) Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating....
The court upheld the rejection of a discharge application, emphasizing that a prima facie case must exist without conducting a mini-trial, affirming the principles of evidence evaluation at the disch....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge can be framed based on the possibility of the commission of a crime, even if the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Cour....
Public servants must account for assets acquired beyond known lawful income, with the burden of proof resting on them, confirming the significance of established evidential standards in corruption ca....
At the discharge stage under Section 239 Cr.P.C., courts assess if allegations, taken at face value, reveal a prima facie case without detailed evidentiary analysis.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair investigation, active consideration of materials before framing charges, and the duty to prevent abuse of the court's pr....
At the stage of framing of charge, the court must prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without appreciating evidence for conviction.
A public servant and abettors can be tried together for possession of disproportionate assets without a satisfactory account of their sources, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
