TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court reinstates corruption charges after High Court wrongly quashed them using incorrect Section 239 CrPC standard</h1> <h3>The State of Orissa Versus Pratima Behera</h3> The State of Orissa Versus Pratima Behera - 2024 INSC 1010 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.
TaxTMI 