2019 (9) TMI 1659 - SC - Indian Laws

Clubbing the income of two public servants - clubbing of assets disproportionate to the known source of income - whether the Investigating Officer was under obligation to record explanation offered by the accused and whether such explanation should be part of the charge sheet and in that light a question is also raised as to whether the sanctions for prosecution were defective? - HELD THAT - The impugned order would indicate that the High Court has not adverted to the charge made against the accused wherein the charge against the accused No. 2 is also of abetting the commission of offence by the accused No.1 and in that regard the conclusion reached by the High Court is not that the charge is not sustainable for the reasons recorded by it. In fact, neither there is any reasons recorded nor application of mind to that aspect. Insofar as the question raised and considered by the High Court, no credence whatsoever has been given to the case of the prosecution that the statement of the accused has been recorded which also forms the basis of the charge sheet and the explanation thus accorded by the accused does not provide satisfactory answer for the charge of disproportionate assets. In that regard the High Court has proceeded at a tangent and has on that basis also arrived at the conclusion that the sanction for prosecution is not proper. Further it is noticed that the High Court has recorded that the statement of the accused made to the police during investigation is not admissible and the procedure adopted during investigation is found to be defective. Such conclusion would arise for consideration only during trial and if the statement made is retracted and there is no other material or evidence on record to establish the charge. Hence the very manner in which the High Court has proceeded to consider the matter is erroneous and the conclusion reached is unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay condonation and leave granting.
2. Discharge of accused by the Special Court and High Court.
3. Validity of the sanction for prosecution.
4. Clubbing of assets of husband and wife.
5. Procedural aspects of investigation and explanation recording.
6. Admissibility of statements made to police during investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay Condonation and Leave Granting:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal against the High Court's order dated 14.12.2015, which allowed the discharge of accused No. 2 and dismissed the appellant CBI’s revision application challenging the discharge of accused No. 1.

2. Discharge of Accused by the Special Court and High Court:
The Special Court discharged accused No. 1 on 15.01.2013 but rejected the discharge application of accused No. 2 on 22.02.2013. The High Court, in a common order dated 14.12.2015, allowed the discharge of accused No. 2 and dismissed the CBI's challenge against the discharge of accused No. 1. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide separate reasons for upholding the discharge of accused No. 1 and discharging accused No. 2.

3. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution:
The High Court questioned the validity of the sanction for prosecution, stating that the Investigating Officer did not provide the accused with an opportunity to explain their assets, leading to a defective sanction. The Supreme Court clarified that the issue of sanction validity should be addressed during the trial, not at the discharge stage, as per the precedent set in Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India.

4. Clubbing of Assets of Husband and Wife:
The defense argued that the CBI wrongly clubbed the assets of the husband and wife, who had independent sources of income. The Supreme Court noted that even when the assets were split, there were still allegations of disproportionate assets against both accused. The High Court failed to consider this aspect adequately.

5. Procedural Aspects of Investigation and Explanation Recording:
The High Court held that the Investigating Officer should have recorded the explanation provided by the accused as part of the charge sheet. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the investigation process does not require a mini-trial before filing the charge sheet. The statements recorded during the investigation are sufficient for filing charges.

6. Admissibility of Statements Made to Police During Investigation:
The High Court concluded that the statements made by the accused to the police during the investigation were not admissible. The Supreme Court noted that such conclusions should be drawn during the trial, not at the discharge stage, and emphasized that the accused would have the opportunity to defend themselves during the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 14.12.2015 and the Special Court's order dated 15.01.2013, restoring the proceedings in Special Case No. 21 of 2010 to the file of the Special Court. The Court left all contentions on merits open to be urged before the Special Court in accordance with law, ensuring that the observations made in this judgment would not prejudice the case of the accused during the trial. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.