STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS.OF POLICE VIGILANCE v. N.SURESH RAJAN & Ors.

Judgment

1 S.C.R. 135 STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS.OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION v. N.SURESH RAJAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 22-23 of 2014) JANUARY 06, 2014. [CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD AND M.Y. EQBAL JJ.] A B CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: ·c s. 239 - Discharge of accused - Accused charged with offences punishable u/s 109 IPC ands. 13(2) r/IN s. 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquiring of properties disproportionate to known sources of income - Held: At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, court D has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by prosecution are true and to evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged E offence - At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and court is not expected to. go deep into the matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction - In the instant case,. while passing the orders of discharge, court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of finding F out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused, but whether that would warrant a conviction - Orders impugned suffer from grave error and, as such, are set aside. ss. 227, 239 and 245 - Discharge of accused - G Explained. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 135 H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A s. 13(2) rlw 13(1) (e) ·-A/legations that State Ministers purchased properties in the names of their relatives - Income tax paid by persons in whose names properties were acquired - Held: While passing the order of discharge, the fact that accused other thari two Ministers have been assessed to and B paid income tax cannot be relied upon to discharge the accused persons particularly in view of the allegation made by prosecution that there was no separate income to amass such huge properties - Properly in the name of an income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually c belongs to such an assessee - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 239. The instant appeals arose out of the orders of discharge of the accused of offences punishable u/s 109 IPC ands. 13(2) read with 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of D Corruption Act, 1988 passed u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In respect of accused respondent no. 1 in Crl. A. Nos. 22-23 of 2014, the High Court in revision petition set aside the order of the Special Judge and discharged the accused; whereas in respect E of accused-respondent no. 1 in Crl. A. Nos. 26-38 of 2014, the revision petition against the order of the Special Judge discharging the accused was dismissed by the High Court. The allegations against respondents no. 1 in both sets of appeals were that while they were Members F of the State Legislative Assemblies and Ministers in the State Government, they acquired and possessed in their own names and in the names of other accused, namely, the.ir relatives, pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to their known sources of income. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The offences punishable under the scheme of the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be tried by a Special Judge and he may take cognizance of G H STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS.OF POL VIG. AND ANTI CORR.137 v. N.SURESH RAJAN the offence without committal of the accused and the A Judge trying the accused is required to follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) for the trial of warrant- cases by the Magistrate. The Special Judge holding the trial is deemed to be a Court of Session. [para 15] (148-C] B

1.2. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials C and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom takeri at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. If the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence E on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the cbnclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. [para 19] [153-B-F] 0 F Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. vs .. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012SCR1034: AIR 2013 SC 52,; Onkar Nath . Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2007 (13) SCR 716 = (2008) 2 sec 561 - relied on. G