2024 (12) TMI 1186 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates corruption charges after High Court wrongly quashed them using incorrect Section 239 CrPC standard

SC set aside HC judgment that had quashed corruption charges against respondent. HC erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction by considering documents ... Whether the High Court is legally correct in interfering with and setting aside the same and discharging the respondent - Prevention of Corruption - Disproportionate income - Submission of copy of ITR and other information before the High Court without disclosing the same before the trial court - framing of charge u/s 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that in the case on hand, the High Court set aside the charge framed against the respondent while exercising the revisional power, it is relevant to refer to the decision in MINAKSHI BALA VERSUS SUDHIR KUMAR AND ORS. [1994 (5) TMI 287 - SUPREME COURT]. This Court on the question of quashing of charge by the High Court held that 'once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course.' A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal the nature of the exercise undertaken for passing the impugned judgment. In fact, the aforesaid observation was made after going through the documents filed by the respondent before the High Court. In this context, it is also to be noted that the High Court has also referred to the contentions of the respondent, including the one that for purchasing land at Bhubaneswar, she had borrowed an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs from her father. After such exercise, it was held by the High Court that there is no clinching material showing that the appellant abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigated him in the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. This observation itself would go against the very scope of Section 239, Cr. P.C. as at the stage of consideration of a petition for discharge what is to be considered whether there is a ‘prima facie’ case and certainly, the endeavour cannot be to find whether ‘clinching’ materials are there or not. In the common parlance the word ‘clinch’ means ‘point’ or circumstance that settles the issue. There are no hesitation to hold that such meticulous consideration for presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while considering the question of discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. as also while considering the question of quashing of charge framed by the Trial Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The judgment under challenge in the case on hand cannot stand the scrutiny. The High Court has clearly erred in its approach and exercise of revisional jurisdiction in quashing the charge framed by the Trial Court upon finding a prima facie case, and also in discharging the respondent – Smt. Pratima Behera. The impugned judgment dated 31.01.2017 in Criminal Revision No.381 of 2016 is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the framing of charges and discharging the respondent under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.Rs.2. Whether there was sufficient material to support the charge of abetment under Section 109 of the IPC against the respondentRs.3. Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its revisional jurisdiction in quashing the charges framed by the Trial CourtRs.4. The applicability of legal principles regarding the discharge of an accused under Section 239, Cr.P.C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Discharge Under Section 239, Cr.P.C.:The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to discharge the respondent under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., which was initially dismissed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore. The High Court set aside the charges on the grounds that there was no 'clinching material' to prove that the respondent abetted her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court emphasized that the obligation to discharge an accused under Section 239 arises only when the charge against the accused is considered groundless. The Court noted that at the stage of framing charges, the presence of a prima facie case is sufficient, and the High Court should not have delved into the sufficiency of the evidence.2. Sufficient Material for Abetment Charge:The appellant argued that an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act could be abetted by a non-public servant, and the only mode of prosecution is through trial as per the PC Act. The respondent contended there was no material to support the charge of abetment under Section 109 of the IPC. The Supreme Court highlighted that while considering abetment, the question is whether there are materials or circumstances casting strong suspicion on the co-accused's involvement. The High Court's focus on the absence of 'clinching material' was deemed inappropriate at the discharge stage.3. High Court's Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction:The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction in quashing the charges framed by the Trial Court. It was noted that the High Court relied on documents not referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. and engaged in a detailed examination of affidavits, which is not permissible at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence should favor the accused, but a strong suspicion founded on materials is sufficient to frame charges.4. Legal Principles Regarding Discharge:The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C., as established in previous judgments. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the Trial Court is not to assess the sufficiency of evidence but to determine if a prima facie case exists. The High Court's meticulous examination of the evidence and its conclusion of no clinching material was beyond the scope of its revisional powers.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its approach and exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The judgment under challenge was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial proceedings given the case's age.