The court emphasized that at the charge framing stage, the trial court must evaluate prosecution materials as true without considering the defense, and prosecution sanction is necessary for certain charges.

ORDER :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

The Central Bureau of Investigation has assailed the order dated 24.03.2003 passed by Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.28/2002 whereby respondents Dinesh Kumar Bangard and Smt. Santosh Bangard were discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 168, 201 and 109/120B IPC.

2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that on the basis of FIR the case was instituted against the respondents for amassing disproportionate assets worth Rs.18,88,039/-. He further argued that after thorough investigation agency concluded that during the check period from 29.05.1990 till 22.01.1999 respondent No.1 Dinesh Kumar Bangard worked as Assistant Commissioner, Foreign Post Office, G.P.O., Jaipur, Audit Air Cargo Customs, Sanganer, Jaipur, Inland Container Depot Customs, Sanganer, Jaipur and Customs Commissioner, Bombay and misused his post and amassed disproportionate assets worth Rs.18,88,039/-. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 24.03.2003 admitted the statement given by accused-respondent No.1 on the basis of chart. He further argued that the chart considered by the court does not find any mentioning neither in the court's order-sheets nor in the charge-sheet submitted in the court, therefore, the learned trial court has committed grave error in discharging the respondent No.1 from the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 168, 201 and 109/120B IPC. Similarly accused-respondent No.2 Smt. Santosh Bangard who is wife of accused-respondent No.1 Dinesh Kumar Bangard has also been discharged under Section 109 /120B IPC. He further argued that accused-respondent No.2 Smt. Santosh Bangard was prosecuted as an abattor and therefore, no sanction for prosecution was required.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor put his reliance upon the judgment passed in P. Nallammal v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police: 1999 CriLJ 3967, decided on 09.08.1999.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents justified the discharge order passed by the learned trial court.

4. Heard and perused the impugned order as well as the entire material available on record.

5. In the matter of State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao in Criminal Appeal No.2504/2023, Hon'ble the Apex Court after referring various judgments held that at the stage of framing of charge mini trial cannot be held. In that matter at the stage of framing of charge accused submitted the explanation and learned trial court refused to take the explanation of the accused and directed to frame the charges against the accused. The matter was traveled upto High Court and respondent challenged the order of framing of charges. The High Court allowed the Revision Application by perusing the material on record placed by the respondent-accused and arrived at a conclusion that trial court had committed an error in dismissing the application and accepting the plea of the respondent which was virtually by way of defence and discharged the respondent.

In the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and Others (2014) 11 SCC 709, Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under: -

"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging t