Brief Facts
- The present petitions were filed against the order passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, by which the Ld. Court has ordered to frame charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section120B IPC.
Issues
- Whether the meticulous examination of the evidences is to be done at the stage of framing of charge or only the prima facie case is to be seen at the stage of framing of charge?
- Whether conducting of a preliminary enquiry is mandatory or not in cases where the FIR itself discloses a cognizable offence?
Held
- The High Court dismissed the petition after considering that memo of transcript of demand of bribe is available on record which was found proven during the investigation and the Petitioner was apprehended red-handed. The case of the prosecution was also supported by the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
- The Court relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including that of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2018 SC 2039, Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 554, Radhey Shyam & Ors. v Kunj Behari & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 121 and Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Ors. MANU/SC/0706/2012.
Principles governing the framing of charge:
- Thus, the following principles can be culled out from the abovementioned discussion based on the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
- At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has only to see as to whether material on record reasonably connects the accused with the crime. Nothing more is required to be enquired into.
- Consideration of the challenge against an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the nature of a mini trial
- At the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
- The challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter.
Preliminary enquiry not mandatory in case of cognizable offences:
- It has also been an important argument on behalf of the petitioner that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5041, in cases where FIR itself discloses a cognizable offence, then in that circumstance conducting of a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory. The above cited judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court only stipulates that conducting of a preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR is not mandatory. It nowhere stipulates that if an enquiry has been conducted, it would vitiate the investigation. Rather Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U. P. & Ors. Reported in AIR 2014 SC 187 has clearly held that in some cases, including corruption cases, before registration of FIR, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the investigating agency.
Relevant Para No.
30, 31