1999 (11) TMI 61 - SC - Customs

Whether High Court was correct to allow both the revisions, filed by the accused and discharged the accused persons? Held that - The High Court committed serious error in discharging the accused persons by advancing elaborate arguments on scanning and scrutinizing the evidence and materials produced by the prosecution. We refrain from recording any positive conclusion on the materials as it may affect the trial. Suffice it to say that a bare perusal of the Judgment of the High Court would indicate that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering discharge of the accused persons as if sitting in appeal against an order of conviction. So far as the contention of Mr. Krishnan is concerned as to whether Reshamwala not being a public servant could be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the said question has recently been answered by a Bench of this Court in the case of P. Nallammal etc. v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police 1999 (8) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT . We, therefore, no force in the aforesaid contention. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside. These appeals are allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the High Court judgment discharging accused persons
- Allegations of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code
- Disagreement on the High Court's decision to discharge accused persons
- Legal arguments on the power of the Court to discharge an accused before trial
- Examination of evidence and materials by the High Court
- Jurisdictional error by the High Court in ordering discharge
- Interpretation of whether a private individual can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Analysis:
The State of U.P. filed an appeal against the High Court's judgment in Criminal Revision cases, where the accused persons were discharged. The accused included an officer of the Customs Department and a private individual, involved in an alleged corruption case. The prosecution's case was based on the seizure of a significant amount of money from the private individual by Customs Authorities, leading to suspicions of illegal transactions with the Customs officer. The accused were charged under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution argued that the Court, at the stage of considering an application for discharge, should not analyze the evidence to determine guilt. They contended that the High Court erred in extensively examining the evidence and materials to discharge the accused. On the other hand, the defense argued that if there was no prospect of conviction based on the prosecution's evidence, the trial should not proceed, citing a previous court decision. Additionally, the defense raised the issue of whether a private individual could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Upon examination of the arguments, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by scrutinizing the evidence extensively and discharging the accused as if sitting in appeal against a conviction order. The Court refrained from making a definitive conclusion on the evidence to avoid prejudicing the trial. The Court also clarified that a private individual could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing a recent decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the Special Judge to proceed with the trial promptly.