1978 (11) TMI 151 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether or not the courts below were legally justified in discharging the respondents? Held that - The High Court correctly pointed out that the records before the Trial Judge show that the Collector Vijayasekharan had valued the land at the rate of ₹ 1.70 lakhs per acre as far back 1 as 3-2-1970 and if two years later the valuation was raised to ₹ 2 lakhs it cannot be said that the land was in any way over-valued. Lastly, there does not appear to be any legal evidence to show any; meeting of mind between respondents No. 1 and 2 at any time. Although the Collector at the time of the acquisition was a distant relation of respondent No. 1 he had himself slashed down the rate of compensation recommended by the Revenue officer from ₹ 2,10,000 to ₹ 2,00,000 and it was never suggested by the prosecution that the Collector was in any way a party to the aforesaid conspiracy. For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court that there was no sufficient ground for trying the accused in the instant case. Moreover, this Court could be most reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of the two courts in the absence of any special circumstances. For the reasons given above, the judgement of the High Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Alleged conspiracy between the respondents to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC.
3. Validity of the compensation awarded for the land acquired by the Government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Ambit of an Order of Discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The primary issue in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the discharge of accused persons. The court emphasized that the Judge is not merely a post office to frame charges at the behest of the prosecution but must exercise judicial discretion to determine if a prima facie case exists. The Judge must sift the evidence to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused without delving into a detailed weighing of evidence, which is reserved for the trial stage. The court cited previous judgments, including *State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh* and *K.P. Raghavan v. M.H. Abbas*, to underline that strong suspicion may suffice for framing charges but cannot replace proof of guilt required for conviction.

2. Alleged Conspiracy Between the Respondents:
The prosecution alleged that respondents No. 1 and 2 conspired to obtain pecuniary advantage by abusing their official positions. Respondent No. 1, a high-ranking government official, was accused of concealing the fact that the land in question was government-owned Khasmahal land and not his private property. The court found that respondent No. 1 had not concealed this fact, as evidenced by a letter he wrote to the authorities, clearly indicating that the land was government-owned. The court also noted that the land was commonly known to be Khasmahal land and that various government records and witness statements corroborated this. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no evidence of criminal intent or malpractice by respondent No. 1.

3. Validity of the Compensation Awarded:
The court examined the rapidity with which the land acquisition proceedings were conducted, noting that while it might appear suspicious, it was explainable due to the urgency expressed by the All-India Radio authorities. The court found that the compensation awarded was for the lessee's interest in the land, not the proprietary interest, which belonged to the government. This was consistent with the legal principle that the government cannot acquire its own interest. The court also dismissed the argument that the compensation was excessive, noting that the valuation was consistent with market rates and previous estimates. The court found no evidence of a conspiracy between the respondents to inflate the compensation amount.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the High Court's judgment, agreeing that there was no sufficient ground for trying the accused. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of discharge passed by the Special Judge was upheld. The court emphasized that the discretion exercised by a senior and experienced Judge in discharging the accused should not be disturbed lightly and found no special circumstances warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

← Previous Next →