1. Public servant accused of possessing disproportionate assets — Spouse charge-sheeted for abetment under Section 109, IPC and Section 13(1)(e), PC Act — Challenge to discharge order. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1219
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
The State of Orissa – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Behera – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3175 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 10262 of 2024)
Decided On : 19-12-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sb Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Mr. Lalitendu Mohapatra, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sb Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Mr. Lalitendu Mohapatra, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Framing of charge – Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 239 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 262] – Possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income – Though at stage of framing of issue what is to be seen is only whether there is a prima facie case to make accused to stand trial – Presumption of innocence should be in favour of accused – However, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused – While considering question of abetment for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act, question is whether there is material(s) or circumstances casting strong suspicion of co-accused to have played significant role in negotiating on figure of amount disproportionately amassed – High Court has clearly erred in its approach and exercise of revisional jurisdiction in quashing charge framed by Trial Court – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Trial Court shall proceed with case in accordance with law. (Paras 10, 12, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
High Court rejected the application of respondent under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for discharge and challenge against framing of charge under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Findings of Court:
High Court has clearly erred in its approach and exercise of revisional jurisdiction in quashing charge framed by Trial Court upon finding a prima facie case, and also in discharging respondent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether possession of assets by a non-public servant spouse constitutes abetment of corruption offences or if a prima facie case exists to justify trial. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. High Court erred by requiring clinching material instead of a prima facie case and by relying on documents outside the scope of Section 239, Cr.P.C. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. At the stage of framing charges under Section 239, Cr.P.C., the court must only determine if a prima facie case exists, not whether evidence is clinching. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court directed to proceed with the case. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. What is the standard for discharging an accused under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.?
An accused is discharged only if the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless. The court examines materials only to satisfy itself that a prima facie case exists, without detailed assessment of evidence or sufficiency to establish the offence. (Para 9 , 13 )
7. Can a court require clinching material to frame charges during a discharge application?
No. At the stage of considering a petition for discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C., the court must determine if there is a prima facie case. Requiring clinching material—circumstances that settle the issue—is beyond the scope of the court's power at this stage. (Para 14 )
8. What are the limitations on a High Court's revisional jurisdiction when quashing charges framed under Section 240, Cr.P.C.?
The High Court should not rely on documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240, Cr.P.C., nor should it use affidavit evidence to decide the merits of the case or usurp the Trial Court's function. (Para 11 )
9. Can a non-public servant be prosecuted for abetting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Yes, an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can be abetted by a non-public servant. The key is whether there is material casting strong suspicion that the co-accused played a significant role in the disproportionate amassing. (Para 5 , 15 )
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. In this Appeal by Special Leave, the appellant challenges the judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No.381 of 2016. The said Revision Petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, in T.R. Case No.43 of 2013 whereunder it rejected the application of the respondent under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) for discharge and the challenge against framing of charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) read with Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the PC Act”). As per the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2017, the High Court set aside the framing of charge under the aforementioned sections of the said enactments and discharged the respondent under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows: -
On 25.11.2019, FIR No.56/2009 came to be registered against Sh. Anil Kumar Sethi, the husband of the respondent, under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. In the course of the inquiry, it was found that he is a public servant working as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Sub-Division, Kakatpur, District Puri and was in possession of disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 40,54,561/-. He was unable to account for such resources for the disproportionate income and therefore, found him liable to be prosecuted under the aforesaid sections of the PC Act. During the course of investigation, it was found that the said Anil Kumar Sethi entered in service as Stipendiary Engineer in the year 1993 in Orissa State Housing Board Corporation and worked there till March, 1997. Thereafter, he joined as Stipendiary Engineer in R.D. Department in March, 1997 and later became a regular Assistant Engineer from January, 1999. In the year 1996 he married the respondent. Though the respondent, the wife of the said Anil Kumar Sethi, claimed that she had been filing Income Tax Returns, they could not be found in the IT Department, though the Income Tax Authorities were able to furnish copies of the Income Tax Returns of Sri Anil Kumar Sethi. The disproportionate assets of the said Anil Kumar Sethi was found to be Rs.39,96,857.7/- as against his known source of income of Rs. 25,81,494/- during the check period from 03.09.1993 to 26.08.2009, which was calculated to be 155% of the total income. In a bid to obtain copies of the Income Tax Returns of the appellant, another attempt was allegedly made by the then Investigating Officer Sri Nirmal Chandra Mohanty and he personally visited the Income Tax Office at Bhubaneswar to obtain the same, but could not get them. The Income Tax Authorities could not trace them out. It was in the said circumstances that they were charge-sheeted under the sections specifically mentioned hereinbefore.
4. The respondent and her husband Sh. Anil Kumar Sethi, thereupon moved applications for discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C., before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore. As noted earlier, it is the dismissal of the said petition that led to the filing of the Criminal Revision before the High Court and ultimately leading to impugned judgment. Evidently, the Trial Court found that there is a potential prima facie case against the appellant and her husband and the same could not be interfered with at the nascent stage. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, held that there is no clinching material to show that the appellant abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigation for the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. After allowing the Revision Petition qua the resp
