Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (9) TMI 1490 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in discharging the accused persons from prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 of the IPC.
2. The burden of proof and the role of the Investigating Officer in considering the explanation provided by the accused.
3. The legal standards and procedures applicable at the stage of framing charges under Section 239 of the CrPC.
4. The scope and limits of the High Court's revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in discharging the accused persons from prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 of the IPC:

The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision to discharge the accused as erroneous. The High Court failed to appreciate that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out. The Supreme Court emphasized that the probative value of materials on record should not be gone into at this stage. The High Court had erroneously conducted a detailed examination of the evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of framing charges.

2. The burden of proof and the role of the Investigating Officer in considering the explanation provided by the accused:

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the burden is on the accused to satisfactorily account for the assets found to be disproportionate to their known sources of income. The Investigating Officer is not required to accept the explanation provided by the accused during the investigation. The Court cited its previous rulings, including K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, to assert that the Investigating Officer's role is to collect material and not to adjudicate on the accused's explanations.

3. The legal standards and procedures applicable at the stage of framing charges under Section 239 of the CrPC:

The Supreme Court reiterated that the test at the stage of framing charges is whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense. The Court emphasized that a detailed evaluation of the evidence or a meticulous consideration of the possible defenses is not required at this stage. The Court held that the word "groundless" in Section 239 means that there must be no basis for presuming that the accused has committed the offense.

4. The scope and limits of the High Court's revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC:

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's revisional powers are limited and should not be exercised in a routine or casual manner. The High Court should interfere only to correct a manifest error of law or procedure that would result in injustice. The Court observed that the High Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by conducting a detailed examination of the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the trial court.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders discharging the accused, and directed the Special Court to proceed with framing charges and conducting the trial. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the legality of the High Court's orders and should not influence the trial court's determination of the accused's guilt or innocence.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates