At CrPC Section 227 discharge stage, prima facie case assessed sans detailed evidence scrutiny; submitted photocopies qualify as primary evidence; investigating officers may obtain voluntary specimen signatures. Petition against discharge denial dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated 06.7.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla (learned Trial Court), vide which the application filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) seeking her discharge was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the CBI filed a charge sheet stating that the petitioner, Mrs. Pali Diwan, Partner of M/s Resource Foods, submitted an application dated 29.9.2010 in the prescribed format along with the relevant documents to avail a non-recurring grant-in-aid for setting up the Integrated Food Chain Project at village Bersa, P.O. Manjohali, Tehsil Nalagarh. The petitioner is a director of M/s Resource Food Private Limited, and she was part of a conspiracy to avail the grant-in-aid; hence, it was prayed that an action be taken against her and the other accused.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, she and the other accused filed an application seeking their discharge, asserting that there was insufficient material to proceed against them. The charge sheet did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The chargesheet was based on hearsay evidence. The prosecution suppressed the original document lying in the possession of the Ministry of Food Processing Industry (MoFPI). Witnesses were shown the photocopies, and they expressed their opinions based on the photocopies alone. The report of the handwriting expert was also based on the photocopies. The photocopies are inadmissible in evidence. The specimen handwriting was taken without following the procedure prescribed under section 311A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The Investigating Officer was not competent to obtain the signatures of the accused. The officers of MoFPI were not charged, and the charge of conspiracy failed. Hence, it was prayed that the accused be discharged.

4. The application was opposed by the CBI by asserting that the accused had applied for a grant-in-aid in favour of M/s Resource Food Private Limited for setting up an integrated cold chain project from the MoFPI based on the forged and fabricated bills/invoices purportedly issued by different suppliers. The photocopies bear the original signatures of the accused, clearly showing that the photocopies were submitted to the Ministry. There was sufficient material to frame charges against the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

5. Learned Trial Court held that the Court has to prima facie assess the material collected by the prosecution and determine whether sufficient material existed for framing the charges. The defence of the accused was not to be seen at the time of framing of charges. The material on record established that photocopies were produced before the Ministry, and such photocopies fall within the definition of the primary evidence. The Investigating Officer stated that the signatures were given voluntarily by the accused, and there is no prohibition on taking the signatures by the Investigat