TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "Act 1988") read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The Respondents in these appeals are husband and wife. The Respondent No. 1 - R. Soundirarasu at the relevant point of time was serving as a Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade 1) at Namakkal during the check period, i.e., from 01.01.2002 to 31.03.2004. The Respondent No. 2, namely, Suguna is the wife of the Respondent No. 1. 5. The Respondent No. 2 is a commerce graduate and claims to be having a separate source of income. She was a partner in a partnership firm running in the name of S.K. Mat Industries along with one R. Kumar w.e.f. 23.10.1993. The partnership came to be dissolved on 31.03.2003, and, thereafter she continued as a sole proprietor. 6. It is the case of the Respondent No. 2 that she has been paying the income tax from 1990 onwards and her IT Returns are being scrutinized by the appropriate authorities. 7. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered against the Respondent No. 1 herein dated 19.09.2005 at the Police Station, Vigil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tentatively estimated to be Rs. 14,66,430/-. Accused's wife Smt. Suguna is a house wife. She is found to have had no sufficient sources of income of her own to acquire the aforementioned assets. So also, Tr. Duraisamy, the father-in-law of the Accused appears to have had no necessity for the purchase and transfer of the property in the name of the grand son (son of the Accused). Thus, the Accused appears to have acquired the above properties in the name of aforesaid persons as his benami (benamis). The total income of the Accused and his family members and expenditure of the Accused and his family during the above said period (i.e. 1.1.2002 to 29.2.2004) have been tentatively assessed as Rs. 8,84,486 and 11,00,198 respectively and hence there was no likely savings for the above said period and on the contrary there was an excess expenditure over the income of the Accused to the extent of Rs. 2,15,712/-. There are grounds to believe that the aforesaid assets are for beyond and disproportionate to the known sources of income of the Accused for the above said period to the extent of Rs. 16,82,142 (Rs. 14,66,430+2,15,712). The above information discloses an offence of crimi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said properties as the properties acquired by the 1st Accused in the name of the Petitioner is totally wrong. The Investigating Officer in his final report has categorically mentioned that no documents were produced during investigation, either by the Petitioner or her husband, to showcase the income derived by the Petitioner by doing money lending business. Even in the present application there is no whisper in this regard by the Petitioner. The contentious issue as to whether the Petitioner derived income from S.K. Mat Industries and through money lending business can be decided only during trial based on the evidence placed before the court in this regard. Hence this Court decides that the above ground urged by the Petitioner is a pre-matured one and thus cannot be entertained at the time of framing charges. 16. In the present case the total value of assets and pecuniary resources held by the Petitioner, her husband and son at the end of the check-period has been computed by the Investigating Officer at Rs. 31,69,498/- as set out in Statement II. During investigation the Petitioner and her husband have not produced any documents except the Income-Tax returns of the Petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Petitioners wife had sufficient source to acquire properties mentioned in Statement II but the Investigating Officer in total disregard to the Income-Tax returns has treated the properties standing in the name of the Petitioner's wife as the properties of the Petitioner on the premise that the Petitioner has purchased the properties benami in the name of his wife and as such the computation made by the Investigating Officer in arriving at the total value of the assets acquired by the Petitioner during the check period at Rs. 28,23,492/- as set out in Statement V is grossly erroneous. As already pointed out the fact that the Petitioner's wife, the 2nd Accused is an Income-Tax Assessee and that she had submitted her Income-Tax returns to the concerned Income-Tax authorities regularly is not seriously disputed. The Petitioner is making an adroit effort to impress upon the court that particulars set out in the Income-Tax returns unequivocally establish the financial capabilities of the wife of the Petitioner to purchase properties and hence the properties standing in the name of the wife of the Petitioner has to be treated as self-acquired properties of the wife of the Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I ought to have been excluded but strangely the Investigating Officer has included the same, which again clearly demonstrate that computation has not been made in proper line. Based on the above said contentions the Petitioner challenging the very methodology adopted by the Investigating Officer, seek an order of discharge. As elaborately discussed in the earlier part of this order, the question as to whether the properties standing in the name of the Petitioner's wife and son are in reality their self acquired properties or whether those properties were in fact acquired by the Petitioner through his financial resources can be decided only at the time of trial based on the evidence adduced by both parties in this regard. Since the nature of properties standing in the name of the Petitioner's wife and son cannot be decided at this stage, at no stretch of imagination it can be contended that the methodology adopted by the Investigating Officer in arriving at the total value of assets and financial resources standing in the name of the Petitioner at the end of the check period is erroneous. 13. Hence considering the materials available on record in the back drop of the princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to put them to trial for the alleged offence. The learned Special Judge recorded a clear finding that the charges levelled against the Accused persons cannot be said to be groundless so as to discharge them from the prosecution in exercise of powers Under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. The Respondents, being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Special Court rejecting their discharge applications, went before the High Court and challenged the orders by filing Criminal Revision Application Nos. 702 and 703 of 2016 reply. Both the Revision Applications came to be heard by the High Court analogously and came to be allowed by the common impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2017. The Respondents herein came to be discharged from the prosecution. While allowing the Revision Applications, the High Court held as under: 41. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer had not considered the explanation submitted by the first Accused and also not taken into account any assets of the Petitioners/ A1 and A2. 42. This Court has also perused the statements of the listed witnesses a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'preponderance of probability' appears to have been taken from Charless R. Cooper v. F.W. Slade, (1857-59) 6 HLC 746. The observations made therein make it clear that what 'preponderance of probability' means is 'more probable and rational view of the case', not necessarily as certain as the pleadings should be. 46. Section 397(1) confers a sort of supervisory power. The purpose is to rectify miscarriage of justice. The main consideration was whether substantial justice was done since this Section confers the revisional jurisdiction upon both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court (Criminal). Nobody can claim it as a matter of right as it confers supervisory jurisdiction. When there is a clear illegality in the order passed by the lower Court, a revision could be entertained. 47. On coming to the provisions of Section 401 of the Code, as it is understood, the object behind this Section is to empower the High Court to exercise the powers of an Appellate Court to prevent failure of justice in cases where the Code does not provide for appeal. 48. The power, however, is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there has been a miscarriage of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the High Court is here before this Court with the present appeals. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE Appellant 20. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State vehemently submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in discharging the Accused persons from the prosecution. He would submit that the whole approach of the High Court, more particularly the finding that "when the prosecuting agency has come forward with a specific occasion, that the Petitioners have amassed wealth which is disproportionate to their known source of income, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution, to prove the indictment with clinching and impeccable evidence beyond all reasonable doubts, because the allegations made against the Petitioners would definitely affect their private rights and their self-respect as well" is erroneous and unsustainable. 21. He would submit that the High Court has erroneously cast a burden on the prosecution to prove the case against the Accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt even at the stage of framing charge. The scope and ambit of inquiry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel appearing for the State prayed that there being merit in his two appeals, those may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the High Court may be set aside. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED 26. Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Accused persons, on the other hand, vehemently opposed both the appeals submitting that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned orders discharging the Accused persons from the prosecution. 27. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that without considering the explanation furnished by the Respondent No. 1 and without calling for any explanation from his wife (second Accused), the chargesheet for the offences punishable Under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code could not have been filed. The learned Counsel, relying on the decision of this Court in the case of N. Suresh Rajan (supra), submitted as a proposition of law that any property in the name of an income tax Assessee, by itself, cannot be a ground to assume that such property belongs to the Assessee. 28. He would submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....She is a commerce graduate and was a partner in a S.K. Matt Industries along with one R. Kumar with effect from 23.10.1993. The partnership was dissolved on 31.3.2003 and thereafter she continued as the sole proprietor. She had been paying income tax from 1990 onwards and her IT returns were scrutinized by the appropriate authorities. She had been regularly filed her income tax returns even beyond the end of the check period. vi. It is respectfully submitted that the Investigating Officer while collecting necessary details from both the income tax authority as well as the Respondent R. Soundirarasu, had failed to consider them in proper perspective which do establish that his wife Tmt. Suguna had acquired properties from her own income. But the investigating officer has erroneously stated in the final report that she had no source of income and that her father also did not possess any means to acquire property. 15. It is submitted that Statement No. 1 appended to the letter dated 16.10.2007 and the Charge Sheet is the assets and pecuniary resources that stood to the credit of Respondent and his family members. The check period, as per the prosecution has been determined from 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account, since the loan was obtained by his wife independently and repaid so far with interest by her, out of her own resources. iii. Item No. 5, Telephone charges of Rs. 26,854/- were paid by Respondent's wife out of her own resources. iv. Item No. 10, the house tax was paid by Respondent's wife out of her own resources. v. Item No. 09, the transaction pertains to Respondent's wife. Therefore, the loss should not have been shown in Respondent's account. vi. Item No. 11 is subscription towards Sri Ram Chits was made by Respondent's wife out of her own resources. vii. Item No. 12 the house tax for the house at Ganapathy is paid by Respondent's wife out of her own resources. viii. Item No. 14, the income tax paid by his Respondent's wife out of her own resources has been shown in his account. 19. It is submitted that the calculation made by the Petitioner is incorrect. It is submitted that the correct computation as has been explained by the Respondent in his explanation is as follows, i. The value of assets that stood to Respondent's credit as well as to the credit of his family members at the beginning of the check period is Rs. 1,31,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....materials and the explanation afforded by the Respondent. After examining the facts emerging from of the materials brought on record by the prosecution, the High Court has concluded that prima facie the materials on record does not disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offences alleged against the Respondents. The High Court has rightly concluded that the evidences tagged along with the final report are also not in consonance with the accusation made in the final report. The High Court has rendered the judgment discharging the Accused to avert miscarriage of justice and to erase the prejudice caused to the Accused at the instance of the investigating officer by not examining the explanation rendered by the first Accused in proper perspective and without calling for the explanation from the second Accused. Prejudice is also caused by the finding of the Special judge to the effect that there are no materials/ evidence to prove that the second Accused has separate and independent source of income. (Emphasis supplied) In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Counsel prayed that there being no merit in the two appeals filed by the State, those may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is whether the High Court committed any error in discharging both the Accused from the charges levelled against them? 33. We have no hesitation in observing that the impugned orders passed by the High Court are utterly incomprehensible. We shall explain in details why we say so. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 34. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 including explanation thereto reads as under: 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, Rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. 35. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defines the expression "known sources of income" and states that this expression mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first part of the expression "known sources of income" in N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A.P., 2009 Crl.L.J. 1767, this Court observed as under: 15. The emphasis of the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) (old Section 5(1)(e)) is clearly on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is classic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and being further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "Income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the Accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. 6. Another argument bearing on the same aspect of the case, is that the prosecution has not led evidence to show as to what are the known sources of the Appellant's income. In this connection, our attention was invited to the evidence of the investigating officers, and with reference to that evidence, it was contended that those officers have not said, in terms, as to what were the known sources of income of the Accused, or that the salary was the only source of his income. Now, the expression "known sources of income" must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. It was not, and it could not be, contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the Accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an Accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the Accused, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the expression "known sources of income" in the context of Section 5(3) meant "sources known to the prosecution". The other principle is equally well- settled. The onus placed on the Accused Under Section 5(3) was, however, not to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt, but only to establish a preponderance of probability. These are the well-settled principles: see C.S.D. Swamy v. State; Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab and V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P. The legislature thought it fit to dispense with the Rule of evidence Under Section 5(3) and make the possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant as one of the species of the offence of criminal misconduct by inserting Section 5(1)(e) due to widespread corruption in public services. 12. The terms and expressions appearing in Section 5(1)(e) of the Act are the same as those used in the old Section 5(3). Although the two provisions operate in two different fields, the meaning to be assigned to them must be the same. The expression "known sources of incomes" means "sources known to the prosecution". So also, the same meaning must be given to the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" occ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the Accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct Under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the Accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the Accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets Under Section 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in Jhingan case i.e. to establish his case by a preponderance of probability. That test was laid down by the court following the dictum of Viscount Sankey, L.C., in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecution. The High Court has placed an impossible burden on the prosecution to disprove all possible sources of income which were within the special knowledge of the Accused. As laid down in Swamy case, the prosecution cannot, in the very ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t an open ended or rowing enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an Accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the Accused to the authorities under law, Rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. No further investigation is required by the prosecution to find out the known sources of income of the Accused public servant. As noticed above, the first part of the explanation refers to income received from legal/lawful sources. This first part of the expression states the obvious as is clear from the judgment of this Court in N. Ramakrishnaiah (supra). (Emphasis supplied) 42. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid that the expression "known source of income" is not synonymous with the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account." The two expressions connote and have different meaning, scope and requirements. 43. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr., this Court, after an exhaustive review of its various other decisions, more particularly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or not, would be elevating the Investigating Officer to the position of an enquiry officer or a judge. The Investigating Officer is not holding an enquiry against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues regarding the dis-proportionality between the assets and the income of the Accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a report which he files in the court as charge-sheet. (Emphasis supplied) 46. The second contention canvassed on behalf of the Accused persons that every bit of information in regard to the assets had been intimated to the Income Tax Authorities and the documents in regard to the same should be sufficient to exonerate the Accused persons from the charges is without any merit. In other words, the contention that the High Court rightly took into consideration the aforesaid for the purpose of discharging the Accused persons from the prosecution is without any merit and erroneous more particularly in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi (supra). This Court has observed in paras 58, 60 & 61 reply as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the Accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India [Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 302], a writ petition was filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ for directing the Union of India to take appropriate action to prosecute R-2 to R-5 under the 1988 Act for having amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by misusing their power and authority. The Respondents were the then sitting Chief Minister of U.P. and his relatives. Having noticed that the basic issue was with regard to alleged investments and sources of such investments, Respondents 2 to 5 were ordered by this Court to file copies of income tax and wealth tax returns of the relevant assessment years which was done. It was pointed out on behalf of the Petitioner that the net a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment in Kedari Lal (supra) were such that the --source of the income was not in question at all and hence, the Income Tax Returns were relied upon conclusively; and (ii) in any case, the decision in Kedari Lal (supra) was delivered while considering a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under the PC Act, while the present matter is at the stage of quashing of an FIR. 61. In the present case, the Appellant is challenging the very --source of the Respondent's income and the questioning the assets acquired by them based on such income. Hence, at the stage of quashing of an FIR where the Court only has to ascertain whether the FIR prima facie makes out the commission of a cognizable offence, reliance on the documents produced by the Respondents to quash the FIR would be contrary to fundamental principles of law. The High Court has gone far beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction by virtually conducting a trial in an effort to absolve the Respondents. (Emphasis supplied) 47. Now, the reason why we say that the impugned orders passed by the High Court are utterly incomprehensible is because the High Court has not been able to comprehend the true scope and ambit of Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion, he may, frame a charge against the Accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the Accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the Accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the Accused, and the Accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. Section 239. When Accused shall be discharged.--If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it Under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the Accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the Accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the Accused to be groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Accused and the prosecution or the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the Accused and after affording an opportunity to the parties to be heard. On the other hand, the stage for discharge Under Section 245 is reached only after the evidence referred to in Section 244 has been taken. 54. Despite the slight variation in the provisions with regard to discharge under the three pairs of Sections referred to above, the settled legal position is that the stage of framing of charge under either of these three situations, is a preliminary one and the test of "prima facie" case has to be applied -- if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed. 55. The nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of charge came up for consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561, and referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, and the State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, it was held that at that stage, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the Accused. 58. Reiterating a similar view in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 11 SCC 476, it was observed by this Court that while framing charges the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to decide whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the Accused had committed the offence and it is not required to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict the Accused. It was held that the Court at this stage cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations and contradictions & inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. 59. In the context of trial of a warrant case, instituted on a police report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that the Accused has committed the offence. The word 'groundless' used in Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means that the materials placed before the Court do not make out or are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the Accused. 62. The learned author Shri Sarkar in his Criminal P.C., 5th Edition, on page 427, has opined as: The provision is the same as in Section 227, the only difference being that the Magistrate may examine the Accused, if necessary, of also Section 245. The Magistrate shall discharge the Accused recording reasons, if after (i) considering the police report and documents mentioned in Section 173; (ii) examining the Accused, if necessary and (iii) hearing the arguments of both sides he thinks the charge against him to be groundless, i.e., either there is no legal evidence or that the facts do not make out any offence at all. 63. In short, it means that if no prima facie case regarding the commission of any offence is made out, it would amount to a charge being groundless. 64. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545, this Court has stated about the ambit of Section 251(A)(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the Accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 67. The suspicion referred to by this Court must be founded upon the materials placed before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged. Therefore, the words "a very strong suspicion" used by this Court must not be a strong suspicion of a vacillating mind of a Judge. That suspicion must be founded upon the materials placed before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion about the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged. 68. Section 239 has to be read along with Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the Magistrate finds that there is prima facie evidence or the material against the Accused in support of the charge (allegations), he may frame charge in accordance with Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But if he finds that the charge (the allegations or imputations) made against the Accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ashed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259] the High Court or the Magistrate are also not supposed to adopt a strict hypertechnical approach to sieve the complaint through a colander of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients of offence with which the Accused is charge. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial but not during the initial stage. 71. In the case of State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, this Court observed and held in paragraph 25 as under: 25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be said to be "groundless". 74. The word "ground" according to the Black's Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the Accused or foundation for the admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word "groundless" would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever. SPOPE OF EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER AT THE STAGE OF CHARGE 75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631, this Court held as under: 3....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine of preponderance of probability, the case put up by the prosecution cannot be termed as "groundless". As observed by this Court in C.D.S. Swami (supra) that the Accused might have made statements before the investigating officer as to his alleged sources of income, but the same, strictly, would not be evidence in the case. 80. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the Accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the Accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the Accused and within the knowledge of the Accused. It is for the Accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the Accused to give satisfactory explanation. The Accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Sec....