Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Samit Gopal, J.
Sanjeev Nayan Mishra - Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. -4562 of 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397, 401, 227, 239 - Discharge application - Revision against rejection of discharge application under Section 227 - Allegations of disproportionate assets against public servant - Court must determine if prima facie case exists without conducting a mini-trial - Rejection of discharge application upheld as no grounds for interference found. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 24)
(B) Discharge - Principles - At the stage of discharge, the court must sift evidence to determine if sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused - Strong suspicion based on material is sufficient for framing charges. (Paras 10, 23)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist, a retired District Social Welfare Officer, faced allegations of disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 42,15,150/- during his service, leading to a charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's rejection of the discharge application was based on a well-reasoned order, affirming that the material presented did not warrant discharge. (Paras 9, 24)
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application based on the evidence presented. (Paras 4, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court correctly applied the principles of law regarding discharge, emphasizing that a prima facie case must be established without delving into the merits of the evidence. (Paras 10, 24)
Result: The revision is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Samit Gopal, J.
1. Heard Sri Ayush Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General and Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the material on records.
2. The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist-Sanjeev Nayan Mishra, with the prayer to allow the present revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 08 / 146 arising out Case Crime No. 05 of 2020, under Section 13 (1) (b) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, Police Station Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment, Meerut, Sector Meerut, with a further prayer to stay the effect & operation of the aforesaid impugned order, during the pendency of the present revision.
3. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 14.08.2024 by which the trial court concerned has rejected the Application No. 53 Ka under Section 227 Cr.P.C. along with additional Application No. 57 Kha for discharge. Earlier the revisionist had approached this Court challenging the charge-sheet of the matter in Application U/S 482 No. 22409 of 2024 (Sanjeev Nayan Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others) which was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in which liberty was granted to the applicant to approach the court concerned for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The said order reads as under:-
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant Sanjeev Nayan Mishra has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the charge sheet no. 02/2024 dated 20.01.24 in Case Crime No. 05/2020, u/s 13 (1)B r/w 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, Police Station -Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Meerut Sector Meerut and cognizance order dated 31.01.24 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Meerut in Crl. Case No. 08/146/2024, State Vs. Sanjeev Nayan Mishra.
It is also further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire proceeding of Crl. Case No. 08/146/2024, State Vs. Sanjeev Nayan Mishra, Case Crime No. 05/2020, u/s 13(1) B r/w 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, Police station-Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Meerut Sector Meerut in pursuance of charge sheet no. 02/2024 dated 20.01.2024 and cognizance order dated 31.01.24 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Meerut during the pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice, otherwise applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury."
4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that since as per the material on record no prima facie case is made out against applicant, therefore, interest of justice shall better be served in case applicant is permitted to seek discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before court.
5. Learned A.G.A.has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and considering the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant as noted herein above, the prayer prayed for by means of present application is refused.
7. However, liberty is granted to applicants to approach court below by means of a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. within a period of two weeks from today. In case applicant appears before court below and files discharge
The court upheld the rejection of a discharge application, emphasizing that a prima facie case must exist without conducting a mini-trial, affirming the principles of evidence evaluation at the disch....
(1) No provision in Cr.P.C. grants any right to accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge.(2) Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating....
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code at the stage of framing of charges, highlighting the need to accept the material brought on record....
word "ground" according to Black's Law Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean bas....
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
At the charge framing stage, prima facie evidence must substantiate serious suspicion; the trial court is not to weigh evidence but must proceed based on materials presented by the prosecution.
Framing of charge – Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court must prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without appreciating evidence for conviction.
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
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
