9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2828 - HC - Indian LawsConspiracy - disproportionate sources of income - framing of charges - offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - In the present case the allegation against husband of petitioner is that he acquired disproportionate assets in his name and in the name of the petitioner and other family members out of ill gotten money. In case of P. NALLAMMAL VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1999 (8) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court has held that if a non-public servant abets any offence committed by the public servant such non-public servant shall also be liable to be tried along with the public servant. The learned Trial Court after taking into account the materials available before it directed for framing of charges against the petitioner. The details and particulars regarding the respective role of the accused have been drawn in the charge-sheet which makes the case against the petitioner triable. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the materials available against the petitioner taken to be ex facie true do not constitute the offences alleged. It is admitted that out of 35 witnesses 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Thus the trial is at the advance stage - It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge the Court is not expected to hold mini trial and delve deep into the matter for the purposes of appreciating the evidence and the evidence can only be weighed when the entire material will be brought before the Trial Court. The Court was required to see at the time of framing charge whether a strong suspicion exists for commission of the offence. The Trial Court found prima facie case against the petitioner accordingly framed charges. By the present petition inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been sought to be invoked. The inherent powers are only meant to be applied ex debito justitiae in order to render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Court exists or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. At the time of framing the charges the Court had to see prima facie case the material which is in the possession of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. The Trial Court has to rely upon the charge-sheet and the material placed by the prosecuting agency. In the present case the allegations against the petitioner and her husband are of severe nature namely abusing the official position. The petitioner alleged to have conspired with her husband and amassed assets as mentioned in the charge sheet and impugned orders as well. This Court is not inclined to interfere therewith - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Framing of charges under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Consent of the State Government for prosecution by the CBI. 4. Examination of prima facie evidence at the stage of framing charges. 5. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation and application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The petitioner argued that the learned Trial Court misinterpreted the scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2). The petitioner contended that the Act is comprehensive and self-contained, specifying punishments for abetment of certain offenses without relying on the IPC provisions. The petitioner emphasized that there is no provision in the Act for punishing abetment under Section 13(1)(e). 2. Framing of charges under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Charges were framed against the petitioner's husband for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Act. The petitioner was charged under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Act. The petitioner argued that her independent income from her business should not be included in her husband's income and that her assets were acquired legally. The Trial Court, however, found sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioner, noting that she allegedly conspired with her husband to amass disproportionate assets. 3. Consent of the State Government for prosecution by the CBI: The petitioner argued that there was no permission from the concerned State to prosecute her and her husband. The Court referred to the cases of M. Balakrishna Reddy vs. Director, CBI and State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, which discussed the necessity of State consent for CBI investigations. The Court concluded that since the petitioner's husband was a Central Government employee, State consent was not required. 4. Examination of prima facie evidence at the stage of framing charges: The Court reiterated that at the time of framing charges, it is not expected to hold a mini-trial or delve deeply into the evidence. The Court's role is to determine whether there is a strong suspicion of the commission of an offense. The Trial Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner based on the charge-sheet and the material presented by the prosecution, justifying the framing of charges. 5. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought to invoke the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The Court emphasized that these powers are to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court referred to the precedents set in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which outlined the circumstances under which inherent powers could be exercised. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's orders, as the allegations and evidence presented constituted a prima facie case. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Trial Court's orders dated 31st July 2014 and 1st August 2014, and found no discrepancy in the framing of charges against the petitioner. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
