The court clarified that establishing a prima facie case is crucial before discharging any accused in criminal proceedings, ensuring judicial scrutiny of available evidence.

The common order dated 7.1.2020 in Crl.M.P.Nos.616/2019, 446/2017, 605/2017 in C.C.No.1/2016 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing the application seeking discharge filed by the revision petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 respectively is under challenge. Accused No.1 is revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.245/2020. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.468/2020 is accused No.4. Accused No.5 is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.155/2020. The VACB/SIU-I/TVM registered Crime No.7/2011/SIU-I against the accused alleging the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:

• There are seven accused persons. Accused No.1 is the Junior Superintendent, Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the traders at Parassala in Thiruvananthapuram District. Accused Nos.6 and 7 are working as agents for the traders in the Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara. Accused No.1 abused her official position as a public servant and conspired with accused Nos.2 to 7 and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Nos.6 and 7 submitted forged triplicate and quadruplicate challans showing the remittance of advance tax in the Sub Treasury, Neyyattinkara through SBT, Neyyattinkara on different dates between June, 2007 and June, 2008 on behalf of accused Nos.2 and 5 by boosting up the actual amount intending that those challans shall be used for the purpose of cheating and fraudulently and dishonestly used therein as genuine knowing them to be forged ones and thereby caused undue pecuniary advantage to accused Nos.2 to 5 and corresponding loss of Rs.26,58,595/- to the State exchequer. After completing the investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the Special Court. In response to the summons, the accused appeared. Accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 filed applications seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The Special Judge dismissed those applications.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for accused No.1 submitted the following:

• a) The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against accused No.1. b) Accused No.1 had no role in the alleged forgery. c) The forged challans were approved by the Commercial Tax Officer. Accused No.1 had no role in that process.

5. The learned counsel for accused Nos.4 and 5 made the following submissions:

• a) Accused Nos.4 and 5 being the proprietors of the firm never directly dealt with the Commercial Tax Office.

• b) They entrusted the responsibility to remit the advance tax to accused Nos.6 and 7 who worked as their agents.

• c) The challans were submitted by accused Nos.6 and 7 before the Commercial Tax Office.

• d) They had remitted the entire amount due to the Government in response to the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer even before the registration of the crime.

6. The learned Special Pubic Prosecutor submitted the following:

• The investigation revealed that the proprietors and their men with the aid of accused No.1 cheated the Government and misappropriated the Government money. Accused No.1 accepted the forged challans and put her signature on it. The only person, who is aware of the original entries in the challans at the time of counter signing the same in the Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara is accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 7 colluded with accused No.1 and committed the offences resulting in huge pecuniary loss to the Government and pecuniary advantage to the accused persons.

7. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when “the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.”

8. The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case. The probative value of materials on recor