D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision the order of Special Judge, Ahmedabad allowing the application of the accused no. 3, who is respondent in this revision, is under challenge.

( 2 ) THE said accused moved an application under sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being discharged, inasmuch as, there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The C. B. I. registered a case under secs. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 13 (2) read with sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against five persons including the respondent. However, Harshad P. Mehta and Smt. HH Hingorani were not sent up for trial. Only three persons including the respondent were sent up for trial. The case of the respondent was that, there is no material or evidence against him on which he can be proceeded.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted in the trial Court by the C. B. I. , and after considering the material on record and submissions made by the respondent and the C. B. I. , the trial Judge found that the respondent was not directly involved in the alleged offence, hence, he deserves to be discharged. Accordingly, he was discharged.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the C. B. I. has preferred this revision.

( 5 ) SHRI Amit Shah, learned counsel for the C. B. I. , Shri SV Raju, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri HH Patel, learned APP for the respondent no. 2 were heard at length.

( 6 ) THE contention of Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the revisionist has been that the trial Court committed error in discharging the respondent no. 1, inasmuch as, it had no jurisdiction to sift the evidence and come to the conclusion that the witnesses were not reliable and that the charge would not ultimately succeed or that there was no evidence against the respondent no. 1. According to him, at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial Court should have considered only this much, whether there was material for proceeding against the accused. In other words, if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, charges have to be framed and the accused can not be discharged. He has referred two cases in support of his contention.

( 7 ) IN STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. PRIYA SHARAN MAHARAJ 1997 CRI. L. J. 2248, the Supreme Court has held that, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.

( 8 ) IN STATE OF M. P. v. S. B. JOHARI (2000) 2 S. C. C. 57, the Supreme Court has again held that, under sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has only to see whether prima facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion that 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. It can not appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter.

( 9 ) AS against this, Shri Raju has referred three judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that the trial Court has limited jurisdiction to sift the evidence to find out, whether there are reasonable grounds for proceeding against the accused or not, and examination of evidence for this limited purpose is not prohibited.

( 10 ) THE Apex Court, after examining number of earlier decisions given by it, made the following observations in UNION OF INDIA v. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL and ANR. (1979)3 S. C. C. 4 :1. That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under sec. 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document