Back
D.A.DESAI, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Prafulla Kumar Samal – Respondent
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa by which the High Court has upheld the order of the Special Judge, Puri discharging respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and centre round an alleged conspiracy said to have been entered into between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in order to commit offences under Sections 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. The main charge against the respondents was that between 19-2-1972 to 30-3-1972 the respondents entered into an agreement for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary advantage for respondent No. 1 P. K. Samal and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the second respondent Debi Prasad Jena, who was the Land Acquisition Officer aided and abetted the first respondent in getting a huge sum of money for a land acquired by the Government which in fact belonged to the Government itself and respondent No. 1 was a lessee thereof. It is averred in the charge-sheet that respondent No. 1 by abusing his official position concealed the fact that the land whic
**Primary Case: Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366 / (1979) 3 SCC 4 / 1979 Cri LJ 154 (and variants like Prafulla Kumar Samal)**
Appears in ~95% of list entries (e.g., COLLECTOR OF PURI VS KAMALA KANTA DAS - 1979 0 Supreme(Ori) 25, A. K. Sirkar VS State of West Bengal - 1979 0 Supreme(Cal) 269, PRITAM SINGH VS STATE - 1980 0 Supreme(HP) 78, etc.).
**Treatment**: Consistently followed, approved, relied upon, reiterated, and cited with approval across hundreds of subsequent decisions.
**Evidence**: Phrases like "the decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court" (COLLECTOR OF PURI VS KAMALA KANTA DAS - 1979 0 Supreme(Ori) 25); "laid down the following principles" (Habib Khan VS The State of Rajasthan - 1983 0 Supreme(Raj) 412, Dhruvdeo Mishra VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 370); "Prafulla Kumar case has only reiterated what has been stated in Ramesh Singh case" (Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad: State Of Maharashtra VS Dilip Nathumal Chordia: Dilip Nathumal - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 81, Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad etc. VS Dilip Nathumal Chordia - Crimes (1989)); "approved the principle laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal's case" (DAMBAR SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 306); "law is well settled" (Sanjula Mishra VS State of Bihar - 2013 0 Supreme(Pat) 1174); "Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain principles" (Sneh Lata VS State Of Punjab - 1991 0 Supreme(P&H) 1173). No negative treatment.
**Relevance**: Establishes principles for charge framing under CrPC Sections 227/228 (prima facie case, grave suspicion, no mini-trial).
**Supporting Cases (routinely cited alongside Prafulla Kumar Samal, positively treated)**:
**State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 / (1977) 4 SCC 39**: Followed/approved (e.g., "Prafulla Kumar's case has only reiterated what has been stated in Ramesh Singh case" Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad: State Of Maharashtra VS Dilip Nathumal Chordia: Dilip Nathumal - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 81; cited together in Gharsi Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 1983 0 Supreme(Raj) 467, Purushottam Das Goswami VS State of Bihar - 1991 0 Supreme(Pat) 366).
**Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52 / (1979) 4 SCC 274**: Followed/approved (e.g., State of Assam VS Hanuman Prasad Sarma - 1983 0 Supreme(Gau) 9, Rajendra Agrawal VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 1988 0 Supreme(MP) 230, State of M.P. v. Sudhir Pingle - 2000 Supreme(Online)(SC) 122).
**Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76**: Followed (e.g., State of M. P. VS Rikhiram - 1991 0 Supreme(MP) 68, Kamru VS State Of Haryana - 1994 0 Supreme(P&H) 422).
**State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489**: Followed (e.g., GUDDUBAI VS RAJENDRA KUMAR AWASTHI - 1993 0 Supreme(MP) 489).
**Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135**: Follows/reiterates Prafulla Kumar (e.g., Ashutosh Choudhury VS State of Assam - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 553, Bhupinder Singh Patel VS CBI - 2008 0 Supreme(Del) 651).
**Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368**: Follows/reiterates (e.g., Ghulam Abbas VS State of Rajasthan - Crimes (2011), Girdhari Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 617).
**Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council**: Cited positively with Prafulla (e.g., Muralilal Gupta VS Republic of India - 2005 0 Supreme(Ori) 353).
**Explanation for Category**: Overwhelming majority (~98% of entries) treat these as good law. They form a consistent chain of precedents on CrPC charge-framing standards (sifting evidence for "grave suspicion," no full trial). No criticism, distinction, or negative language found.
**Unrelated/Non-Precedent Cases (mentioned but not analyzed for treatment)**:
Jagar Nath Kaul VS State - 2003 0 Supreme(J&K) 147: Bribery case (corroboration needed) – Standalone summary, no treatment indicators.
Special Land Acquisition Officer VS K. S. Ramachandrarao - 1972 0 Supreme(SC) 263: Land acquisition – Standalone, no treatment.
K. P. Raghavan VS M. H. Abbas - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 193: Magistrate inquiry under CrPC 209 – Standalone principle.
German Singh VS State Of J. &K. - 1982 0 Supreme(J&K) 2, R. S. Nayak VS A. R. Antulay - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 141, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate: State Of Maharashtra: State Of Maharashtra: Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya VS Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya: Jitendrabhimrajbijjaya: Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya: State Of Maharashtra - 1997 2 Supreme 29, SUDHIR KUMAR ARYA VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 1990 0 Supreme(HP) 154, TARA DATT VS STATE OF H. P. - 1991 0 Supreme(HP) 9: Fragmentary/non-criminal law mentions, no clear treatment patterns.
**Explanation**: These lack treatment signals (e.g., "followed," "overruled") and appear incidental; categorized here as positively treated by default or neutral.
**Fragmentary or Typo-Heavy References**:
COLLECTOR OF PURI VS KAMALA KANTA DAS - 1979 0 Supreme(Ori) 25: "Prafulla Kumar Samal, ILR (1976) Cut 1392" – Pre-SC version; "affirmed by SC" confirms positive.
HARI SHANKER GAUR VS STATE OF DELHI - 1981 0 Supreme(Del) 132, JAI NARAIN VS ZILE SINGH - 1981 0 Supreme(Del) 211: Partial citations (e.g., "1979 Grl. L. J. 154"); context shows positive reliance.
German Singh VS State Of J. &K. - 1982 0 Supreme(J&K) 2: "Vs. union of India and other, (1973) I S C." – Unclear/incomplete; no treatment signal.
Ramchand VS Joginder Singh - 1982 0 Supreme(P&H) 69, Satish Mehra VS Delhi Administration - 1996 5 Supreme 742, etc.: Minor variants (e.g., "Prafulla Kumar" without "Samal"); all positive.
**Explanation**: Treatment unambiguous (positive) despite fragments. Included here only for minor citation ambiguities; categorized as positively treated overall due to context.
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
