Brief Facts
- Proceedings were initiated against the Respondent-Accused under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 and against the same an application for discharge was filed by the Respondent, stating that the investigating officer failed to consider the written explanation submitted by accused along with supporting documents and the conclusion reached by the sanctioning authority was also without considering the same reflecting non-application of mind.
- The said application for discharge was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Respondent challenged the same before the Hight Court by way of Criminal Revision Application. The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application and thus the State approached the Supreme Court feeling aggrieved by the same.
Issues
- Whether the accused has right to produce any material or documents at the stage of framing of charges?
- What are the considerations to be taken care of at the stage of framing of the charges?
- What is the scope and ambit of the proceedings of the revisional court?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the High Court as the same was beyond the contours of law and also because the High Court had exceeded its powers while acting as revisional court.
- It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
- At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only.
- If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge- sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O.
- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged.
- The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into.
- The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge.
Relevant Para No.
- 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15
