Brief Facts
- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought to prosecute six individuals, including Dilip Mulani (Respondent No.1), for offences u/s 120B of the IPC and Sec. 7, 12, and 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
- These offences were allegedly committed during the operation of M/s Khimji Poonja Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., a customs house agent based in Mumbai. The central allegation against the accused, including Dilip Mulani, revolved around the facilitation of bribes to various customs officials, particularly for clearing refund claims of substantial amounts.
- It was contended that Mehul Jhaveri, a co-accused and signatory of the company, paid illegal gratification of Rs. 58,000 to a customs official, Chandubhai Kalal. This bribe represented 1.25% of the refund amount cleared by Kalal for the company’s clients. In addition, the charge sheet mentioned two other payments of Rs. 3,50,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 to an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Anand Singh Mall, facilitated by company employees.
- The prosecution’s case against Dilip Mulani was primarily based on his position as the Managing Director of the company and his alleged role in abetting these acts of corruption. The charge sheet mentioned several instances where funds were allegedly routed through Mulani, who was purportedly aware of and complicit in the payments made to customs officials. However, upon a close examination of the materials presented by the prosecution, the High Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate Mulani’s direct involvement in the conspiracy.
- In its decision, the High Court had discharged Mulani, finding that the material in the charge sheet failed to establish a prima facie case against him. The CBI challenged this order, prompting a remand from the Supreme Court in 2019, instructing the High Court to reconsider the factual aspects of the case. However, even after this remand, the High Court reaffirmed its earlier decision and ordered Mulani’s discharge.
Issues
- Whether the Court is required to assess evidence at the stage of framing charges?
- Whether financial records and the telephonic conversations be relied upon to establish guilt of the accused?
Held
- The appeal was dismissed and the order of discharge was confirmed.
- The Court reiterated that while the burden of proof at the stage of framing charges is relatively lower than at the trial stage, even a prima facie case must be substantiated by credible material.
- It is well established that the Court at the stage of framing charges must evaluate the material on record to determine whether there exists a reasonable suspicion of the accused’s involvement.
- The Court noted that the diary entries and telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution to establish Mulani’s involvement were ambiguous at best. Specifically, the Court found that the initials “DM” in the diary referred to Dushyant Mulani, as admitted by the prosecution during the discharge proceedings.
- In the absence of any telephonic conversations or direct evidence implicating the respondent, and given the prosecution’s own admission regarding the meaning of the initials, it cannot be said that a prima facie case was made out.
- The Court held that the High Court’s reasoning in discharging Mulani was sound and based on a detailed examination of the facts, considering that the material implicating Mulani was largely circumstantial, without direct evidence of his participation in the conspiracy.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 16, 17