2017 (2) TMI 1249 - SC - Indian Laws

Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by HC for quashing the charges framed - Charges under Section 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of IPC - non-issuance of quarry licence - Jurisdiction of High Court - Respondent Mehdu had facilitated Shri Kishan Singh Rawat to carry on illegal mining by which, he obtained illegal benefits to the detriment of State of Rajasthan as well as Smt. Sushma Devi. The quarry licence granted to Sushma Devi was cancelled by Mehdu to facilitate Kishan Singh Rawat to carry on illegal mining on the plot, which was included in the quarry licence of Sushma Devi. Shri Mehdu being a public servant Held that - There was a clear allegation in the chargesheet that quarry licence to Kishan Singh Rawat was given by Shri Mehdu in furtherance of object and purpose of illegally benefitting Kishan Singh Rawat. It was further stated that although, approval for quarry licence on Plot No. 1345/1185/124 area 3 bigha was granted, total area of which comes to only 52,272 Sq. ft., whereas in the technical map, area was shown 80,000 Sq. ft. dishonestly benefiting Kishan Singh Rawat. Special Judge had observed that final adjudication of charge cannot be made unless oral and documentary evidence are received. The High Court has not adverted to the technical map which mentions 80,000 Sq. Ft. and without adverting to that allegation, has erroneously observed that there is no allegation which may come within the meaning of 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act. Both chargesheet and order of the learned Special Judge have specifically noted the allegations, which clearly makes out an offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. SEE Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chander & Anr. 2014 (1) TMI 1042 - Supreme Court Of India Thus we are of the considered opinion that High Court erred in quashing the charges framed by the order dated 05.05.2009. In result, both the appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's decision to quash the charges framed by the Special Judge.
2. Examination of the allegations against the respondents under Section 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of IPC.
3. Scope of interference by the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Decision to Quash the Charges:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in quashing the charges framed by the Special Judge on 05.05.2009. The High Court had quashed the charges on the basis that no allegation was made by the prosecution against the respondent that he obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person through corrupt or illegal means. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider the substance of the allegations in the chargesheet and the technical map showing 80,000 Sq. ft., which was a source for unauthorized mining by Kishan Singh Rawat. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its decision and restored the charges framed by the Special Judge.

2. Examination of Allegations Against the Respondents:
The charges against the respondents included allegations that Fatehkaran Mehdu, a Mining Engineer, facilitated illegal mining operations by Kishan Singh Rawat, thereby causing loss to the State of Rajasthan and Smt. Sushma Devi. The Special Judge noted that Mehdu issued a quarry license for 80,000 Sq. ft. in the form of gap land, although the actual area available was only 52,272 Sq. ft. This act was alleged to have been done in collusion with Kishan Singh Rawat to provide him undue benefits. The Supreme Court emphasized that these allegations, if proven, would constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC.

3. Scope of Interference by the High Court Under Section 397 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., particularly at the stage of framing charges. The Court highlighted that at this stage, the focus should be on whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The Court referred to its previous judgments, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross error, lack of evidence, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the charges at the preliminary stage without a thorough examination of the allegations and evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the charges framed by the Special Judge. The Court directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial expeditiously in accordance with the law.