Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211; Sajjan Kumar v. CBI 2010
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 227, 228, 239, 397, 401
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 201, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2), 15
- Customs Act, 1962 s. 32
Judgment
Judgment
• (2014] 11 S.C.R. 319 STATE TR. INSP. OF POLICE v. A. ARUN KUMAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2602 of 2014) DECEMBER 17, 2014 A B [DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.239 - When accused shall be discharged - Allegations against accused no. 1 to 3 that they entered into criminal conspiracy with c accused no. 4 and 5, in pursuance thereof filed false and fabricated document to claim duty draw back - Registration of case against respondents-accused under the provisions of Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Customs Act - Application by respondents u/s. 239 seeking discharge D - Dismissal of, by the Special Court-holding that a case for framing charges against respondents was made out - Revision by respondents - Allowed by the High Court since no case was made out to frame any charges against respondents - On appeal held: The material on record E disclosed grave suspicion against the respondents - Special Court was right in framing charges against the respondents - Thus, order passed by the Special Court restored and that of the High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
468, 471 a.nd 201 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.13(1)(c), F 13(1)(d), 15 - Customs Act, 1962 - ss.132, 136. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The documents placed on record-copies of shipping bills and corresponding Exchange Control G dcl.:laration forms which are part of charge-sheet disClosed grave suspicion against the respqndents and the Special Court was right in framing charges' against the 319 H 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. • A respondents. The High Court was not justified in stating that Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not be invoked. Since the duty draw back was not actually availed, the prosecution rightly alleged that there was an attempt to commit offence under the relevant B clauses of Section 13(1) of the POC Act.
It is not the requirement of law that in order to charge an accused under Section 15 of the POC Act he must also be charged either under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the POC Act. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Special Court is restored. [Para 6, 9, 1 O] [326-D; 329-E-H; 330-A] c '
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.