TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the charge-sheets disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct so as to justify refusal to quash under the inherent jurisdiction; (ii) whether persons originally named as accused in the FIR could be treated as prosecution witnesses without tender of pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) whether the investigation was vitiated for want of prior approval under Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Issue (i): whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the charge-sheets disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct so as to justify refusal to quash under the inherent jurisdiction;
Analysis: The allegations and supporting material were found to disclose a concerted scheme in the award and execution of contracts, including manipulation of specifications, tender process, pricing and decision-making, with alleged monetary gain to the accused and loss to the exchequer. At the stage of Section 482 jurisdiction, the Court held that it was only required to see whether the material disclosed a cognizable offence and a prima facie case, not to assess the probability of the evidence. The material was held sufficient to proceed with trial for offences of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct.
Conclusion: The charge-sheets disclosed a prima facie case and the proceedings were not liable to be quashed.
Issue (ii): whether persons originally named as accused in the FIR could be treated as prosecution witnesses without tender of pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Analysis: The Court held that the investigating agency was competent to examine any person acquainted with the facts under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the later decision not to send two persons for trial but to treat them as witnesses did not render their statements inadmissible at the quashing stage. Since they were found not to be accomplices in the legal sense, the requirement of pardon under Section 306 did not arise on the facts before the Court.
Conclusion: The statements of those persons could not be excluded at this stage and no prior pardon was required.
Issue (iii): whether the investigation was vitiated for want of prior approval under Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Analysis: The Court held that a direction issued in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to investigate and register a regular case could not be curtailed by the statutory approval requirement relied upon by the applicants. It also noted that sanction for prosecution had already been granted after investigation, and that the objection came too late to defeat the proceedings.
Conclusion: The absence of prior approval did not invalidate the investigation or the prosecution.
Final Conclusion: The Court found sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the accused and declined to interfere in exercise of inherent powers, while directing expeditious trial.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of quashing, the Court will not evaluate the truth or probability of the evidence and will interfere only when the charge-sheet and material, taken at face value, fail to disclose a cognizable offence or reveal a legal bar to the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
