Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Brij Raj Singh, J.
Vikas Asthana - Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 494 of 2022
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Discharge - Criminal Procedure Code - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7/13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2), Section 8/13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2), Section 420 I.P.C., Section 120B I.P.C. - 7, 8, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2), 410, 420, 120B, 34 I.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the provisions of discharge under the Criminal Procedure Code and the classification of criminal cases. It also delves into the procedure for discharge in warrant cases and summons cases, as well as the powers of the magistrate and sessions judge in discharging the accused. The judgment also highlights the judicial scrutiny for a prima facie case and the review of a discharge order. The court's decision emphasizes that discharge is not equivalent to acquittal and provides insights into the review of a discharge order and the discharge of accused in warrant cases instituted on complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed an application before the Court to discharge him from the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution opposed the application, and after hearing both parties, the court passed orders rejecting the discharge application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence and material against the revisionist, and the discharge application was rightly dismissed. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is concerned with the material and forming an opinion on whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The court also highlighted that the power of quashing criminal proceedings at the time of framing of charge should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence and material against the revisionist, the scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the application of the test to establish a strong suspicion of the accused's guilt at the stage of framing of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision emphasized that the probative value of the material on record cannot be questioned at the stage of framing of charges, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. The court also highlighted that the power of quashing criminal proceedings at the time of framing of charge should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as the court found no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the orders rejecting the discharge application. The court clarified that the observations made in the judgment would not influence the trial, and the revisionist was at liberty to seek any remedy available to him under the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.02.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 957 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Asthana & Others) whereby the application for discharge filed by the revisionist has been rejected as well as to quash the order dated 06.04.2022 whereby the ourt below has framed the charges against the revisionist under Section 7/13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Section 8/13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Section 420 I.P.C. and under Section 120B I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2017, under Sections 7, 8, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 410, 420, 120B, 34 I.P.C, PS Barhpura, District Etawah and discharge the revisionist-accuesd from all the charges.
2. Prior to discussing the present controversy, it is necessary to discuss the detail background of “discharge” enshrined under Criminal Procedure Code which would be also relevant to decide the present controversy.
3. Introductory Part :-
The provision of discharge is available to the accused to demonstrate before the court that after perusing the material and evidence, he has been maliciously charged. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Discharge Application is envisaged to provide remedy to the person who has been maliciously charged. If the allegations which have been made against him are false, this Code provides the provisions for filing a discharge application. If the evidence given before the Court is not sufficient to satisfy the offence and in the absence of any prima facie case against him, he is entitled to be discharged.
4. Division of Criminal Cases:-
There are two major classifications of criminal cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure that is:
(2) Cases instituted otherwise than on police report based on the complaint (Section 244-247).
There are four types of the trial procedures provided under CrPC:
1. Summary trials (Section 260-265),
2. Trial of summons cases by Magistrates (Section 251-259),
3. Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates (Section 238250), and
4. Trial before a court of Sessions (Section 225-237).
The procedure of warrant cases is used for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates and the trial before the court of sessions whereas trial of summons cases by Magistrates and summary trials are tried in a summons case trial.
5. Summons Cases:-
Section 2 (w) of the CrPC defines ‘Summons case’ as a case that is related to an offence and it is also not a ‘warrant case’. It includes those offences other than warrant cases i.e, those offences which are not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years.
6. The Warrant Cases:-
Warrant case is defined under Section 2 (x) of the CrPC as a case of an offence which is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years.
The procedure of law is that the police after completing its investigation files the final charge sheet under Section 173 of the code. Trial against the accused begins by the concerned Court thereafter. However, Section 239 and 227 of CrPC, provide provisions that before the charges are framed against an Accused person, he can be discharged. However, in warrant cases only, these provisions can be used by the Accused.
7. Discharging in warrant case on a police report before Magistrate:-
It is procedure of law that the police, after completing its investigation, files the final charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter the accused has to face trial as the charges are framed against him, by the concerned Court. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure grants a procedure that states that the Accused person can be disch
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
