2023 (10) TMI 1346 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking discharge from detention - accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income - failure to consider the written explanation offered - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge. The plea or the defence when requiring to be proved during course of trial is itself sufficient for framing the charge. In the instant case, the learned Trial Judge has noticed that explanation provided by the respondent accused pertaining to purchase of shop No.7 of Suman City Complex of plot No.19, Sector-11 from the loan borrowed and paid by the respondent was outside the check period and hence the explanation provided by respondent is a mere eye wash. This is an issue which has to be thrashed out during the course of the trial and at the stage of framing the charge mini trial cannot be held. That apart the explanation offered by the respondent accused with regard to buying of Maruti Wagon-R car, Activa scooter, purchase of house etc., according to the prosecution are all the subject matter of trial or it is in the nature of defence which will have to be evaluated after trial. The High Court had committed a serious error in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial court - the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.387 of 2016 setting aside the trial court order dated 13.04.2016 requires to be set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanctioning authority's order.
2. Sufficiency of the charge-sheet material to proceed with the trial.
3. High Court's interference with the trial court's order.

Summary:

1. Validity of the sanctioning authority's order:
The respondent questioned the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arguing that the investigating officer (IO) failed to consider his written explanation and supporting documents. The sanctioning authority's conclusion that the respondent possessed assets disproportionate to his known income was alleged to be erroneous. The trial court rejected the discharge application, leading the respondent to seek revision from the High Court, which allowed the revision and discharged the respondent. The Supreme Court examined whether the sanctioning authority's order dated 05.03.2015 and the charge-sheet filed on 17.06.2015 were liable to be quashed.

2. Sufficiency of the charge-sheet material to proceed with the trial:
The prosecution alleged that from 2005 to 2011, the respondent misused his power as Sub-Inspector and acquired assets disproportionate to his known income. The trial court found that the issues regarding loans taken by the respondent from family and friends, and the compliance with Gujarat Civil Services rules, were factual questions to be decided during the trial. The court emphasized that the explanation provided by the respondent for his disproportionate income was considered during the charge-sheet filing and sanctioning process. The trial court concluded that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial, and the application for discharge was dismissed.

3. High Court's interference with the trial court's order:
The High Court, upon revision, accepted the respondent's material and concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the discharge application. The Supreme Court highlighted that at the stage of framing charges, the court must assume the prosecution's material to be true and determine if a prima facie case exists. The accused's defense is not to be considered at this stage. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by evaluating the defense evidence and probabilities, which is impermissible at the discharge stage. The Supreme Court reiterated that the trial court's order was well-reasoned and the High Court's interference was unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the trial court's order, directing the trial to proceed expeditiously.