2014 (1) TMI 553 - SC - Indian Laws

Unaccounted properties possessed - Disproportionate sources of income - Held that - Section 227 and 239 provide for discharge before the recording of evidence on the basis of the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the accused after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard. However, the stage of discharge under Section 245, on the other hand, is reached only after the evidence referred in Section 244 has been taken - The court is required at this stage to see that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused - Following R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1986) 2 SCC 716 1986 (4) TMI 338 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - There is no scope for doubt that the stage at which the magistrate is required to consider the question of framing of charge under Section 245(1) 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 - Accused N. Suresh Rajan has acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income in the names of his father and mother - The property in the name of an income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee - In case this proposition is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences - It will give opportunity to the corrupt public servants to amass property in the name of known persons, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law - While passing the impugned orders, the court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but whether that would warrant a conviction - This was not the stage where the court should have appraised the evidence and discharged the accused as if it was passing an order of acquittal - Defect in investigation itself cannot be a ground for discharge - The order impugned suffers from grave error and calls for rectification - The Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage of charge in accordance with law and make endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously Decided in favour of petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Disproportionate assets and possession of pecuniary resources by public servants.
2. Validity of the discharge orders by the Special Judge and High Court.
3. Condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions.
4. Scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disproportionate Assets and Possession of Pecuniary Resources by Public Servants
The case involves allegations against two former state ministers who allegedly acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income during their tenure. The investigation revealed that assets were held in the names of family members and associates, raising questions about the legitimacy of these holdings. The prosecution argued that these properties were benami transactions, effectively belonging to the accused ministers.

2. Validity of the Discharge Orders by the Special Judge and High Court
The Special Judge initially refused to discharge the accused, stating that there were sufficient materials for framing charges. However, the High Court set aside this order, discharging the accused on the grounds that there was no material evidence to show that the properties held by the family members were actually owned by the accused ministers. The High Court emphasized that the properties in the names of the family members could not be attributed to the ministers without concrete evidence of money transfer or benami transactions.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Special Leave Petitions
The State of Tamil Nadu faced significant delays in filing and refiling the special leave petitions. The delay was initially due to the Public Prosecutor's opinion that it was not a fit case for special leave petitions, a decision influenced by the political context at the time. After a change in government, the new Advocate General opined that the case should be challenged. The Supreme Court, despite recognizing the weight of the argument against condoning such a delay, decided to condone the delay to ensure that the validity of the impugned order could be examined comprehensively.

4. Scope of Judicial Scrutiny at the Stage of Framing Charges
The Supreme Court clarified the legal position regarding the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges. It reiterated that at this stage, the court should not conduct a mini-trial or deeply appraise the evidence. Instead, the court should assume that the prosecution's materials are true and determine whether there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused might have committed the offense. The court emphasized that the probative value of the evidence should not be evaluated at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court and the Special Judge had erred in their approach. The High Court's reliance on the fact that family members were income tax assessees and the properties were in their names was deemed insufficient to discharge the accused. The Supreme Court highlighted that this could lead to corrupt public servants evading the law by holding properties in the names of known persons. The court set aside the discharge orders and directed the trial courts to proceed with the trial from the stage of charge, emphasizing that any observations made were solely for the purpose of these appeals and should not influence the trial's outcome.

← Previous Next →