2018 (1) TMI 1727 - SC - Indian Laws

SC upholds charge framing under Section 227 CrPC requiring prima facie standard without roving enquiry into merits

Mauvin Godinho and Ors. Versus State of Goa

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging charge framing under Section 227 CrPC. The court held that while framing charges, courts must apply prima facie ... Criminal conspiracy - facts of the case do not disclose an offence of cheating and there was no offence of criminal breach of trust - framing charges Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that a court while framing charges Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should apply the prima facie standard. Although the application of this standard depends on facts and circumstance in each case, a prima facie case against the Accused is said to be made out when the probative value of the evidence on all the essential elements in the charge taken as a whole is such that it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such essential elements or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. It cannot be said that no case can be made out against the Accused--Appellants. Allegedly, the Notifications dated 15-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 were issued without the approval of Cabinet and by violation of rules. Looking at the facts of the case in a holistic manner, it is not necessary to go into the aspect of thorough examination of merits of the case, particularly when the issue is still at the stage of framing of charges only. There is no error in framing charges, as suggested by the High Court, when presumably the material on record obligated the Court to do so. There are no illegality in the impugned order - there are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court - appeal disposed off. Issues:Appeal against charges framed under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act - Allegations of conspiracy and wrongful gains in power rebate policy - Discharge from some charges by High Court - Prima facie case for framing charges under Prevention of Corruption Act - Allegations of mala fide complaint and political vendetta - Legal standard for framing charges under Code of Criminal Procedure.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard Criminal Appeals against a High Court order setting aside charges framed under Indian Penal Code and directing framing of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved a dispute related to a government notification granting a 25% tariff rebate to industrial units for power supply. Accused individuals, including a former Minister of Power and public servants, were alleged to have conspired to benefit certain companies illegally, causing a significant loss to the government. The Special Judge framed charges, but the High Court discharged the accused from some charges while directing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused argued political vendetta and cited previous court judgments, but the State contended a criminal conspiracy by the accused resulted in financial loss. The Court noted the legal standard for framing charges requires a prima facie case, and after considering arguments and the record, found no error in the High Court's decision. The Court upheld the order, granting the accused liberty to present additional material before the trial court.In the detailed analysis, the Court emphasized the importance of the prima facie standard for framing charges, highlighting that the evidence must induce belief in the essential elements of the charge. The Court rejected the accused's contentions of political vendetta and previous court judgments, affirming the High Court's decision based on the material available. The Court clarified that at the stage of framing charges, a thorough examination of merits is unnecessary, and the High Court's decision was justified given the circumstances. The Court concluded that the High Court's order was legal, and no interference was warranted, granting the accused the opportunity to present additional material before the trial court for consideration.