2021 (4) TMI 1299 - SC - Indian Laws

Quashing of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar - framing of charge against the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - revisional jurisdiction of High Court - HELD THAT - In the case of P. VIJAYAN VERSUS STATE OF KERALA ANR. 2010 (1) TMI 1097 - SUPREME COURT , this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., if not, he will discharge the accused. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging the accused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court has considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the discharge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all. As rightly observed and held by the learned Special Judge at the stage of framing of the charge, it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered. After considering the material on record including the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused, the learned Special Judge having found that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, framed the charge against the accused for the said offence. The High Court materially erred in negating the exercise of considering the transcript in detail and in considering whether on the basis of the material on record the accused is likely to be convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act or not - the High Court was required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. Therefore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court discharging the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is unsustainable in law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the special leave petition.
2. Legality of the High Court's order quashing the charge framed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
3. Evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges.
4. Scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in discharge applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the special leave petition, stating, "the delay caused in filing the special leave petition is hereby condoned."

2. Legality of the High Court's Order Quashing the Charge:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision, which had quashed the order of the Special Judge framing the charge against the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act. The High Court had discharged the accused by evaluating the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused and concluded that no specific demand for a bribe was made. The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the merits of the evidence at the discharge stage, which is not permissible.

3. Evaluation of Evidence at the Stage of Framing Charges:
The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must only determine whether a prima facie case exists. It stated, "the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence." The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for conducting a detailed evaluation of the transcript, which is beyond the scope of consideration at this stage. The Court reiterated that "even an attempt constitutes an offence" under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted beyond its revisional jurisdiction by conducting a "mini trial" at the stage of considering the discharge application. The Court cited several precedents, including P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and M.R. Hiremath, to underline that the High Court should have only assessed whether a prima facie case was made out. The Supreme Court stated, "the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 Cr.P.C."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order discharging the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act and restored the order of the Special Judge framing the charge. The Court concluded, "the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court discharging the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is unsustainable in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside." The case is to be tried against the accused by the competent court for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act in accordance with law and on its own merits.