Police, CBI, SPE, Cases, Jaipur v. Nagar, Mandsaur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/03/2025

1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner-CBI aggrieved from order of discharge dated

25.07.2001 in Criminal Case No.33/1992 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI Cases), Jaipur.

2. During pendency of this revision petition, respondent No.3 has expired, hence, the proceedings stands abated qua respondent No.3. Now, we are considering the revision petition with respect to respondent No.1 Bingopal Agarwal and respondent No.2 Narayan Prasad Sharma.

3. Facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that respondent No.1 Bingopal Agarwal (Field Officer) and respondent No.2 Narayan Prasad Sharma (Clerk) working in State Bank of [2025:RJ-JP:16621] (2 of 7) [CRLR-429/2002] Indore, Kota in conspiracy and connivance with deceased respondent No.3 Sardar Virendra Singh misusing their post, cheated the bank and caused loss to state exchequre. These persons have sold a land and plot mortgaged with Excise Department of State Government in year 1983 to Sardar Virendra Singh on 08.05.1986. The CBI, after detailed investigation, has filed a charge-sheet against all three respondents.

4. Learned Trial Court while considering the framing charge against accused has agreed with defence raised by respondents and discharged accused Bingopal Agarwal, Narendra Prasad Sharma and Sardar Virendra Singh from charge under Section 120-B read with Section 420, 218, 465, 467, 471 IPC read with Sections 5 (2) and 5 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hence, this revision petition by CBI.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor while relying upon the grounds of revision petition submitted that property of respondent No.3 was attached against dues of Excise Department and to help and benefit him, the respondents No.1 and 2, working as public servants, have hatched a conspiracy with respondent No.3, falsely attached said property against dues of a bank loan and sold the property to defendant No.3, in an auction. He also submitted that that the entire exercise was false and fabricated and carried to help defendant No.3, so that Excise Department of State may not recover its dues, after selling said properties. He also submitted that after investigation, CBI has filed a charge-sheet against three accused persons, the Trial Court without considering the principle of law require consideration at the stage of charge has transgress [2025:RJ-JP:16621] (3 of 7) [CRLR-429/2002] the authority and considering the defence of accused has discharged the accused from serious charges. He also submitted that the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation have corroborated the case of prosecution and from the material on record, it was established that respondent No.1 Field Officer and respondent No.2 Clerk of Bank have misused their official position to help the respondent No.3 Sardar Virendra Singh by causing a huge loss to the Excise Department of State of Rajasthan. He also placed reliance upon judgments in case of CBI Vs. Hari Singh Raka and Ors. Criminal Appeal No.1289/2017 (Order dated 18.07.2017) and State of Maharashta Through CBI Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.2048/2014 (Order dated 19.09.2014).

6. Aforesaid contentions were passed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and submitted that respondent No.1 Bingopal Agarwal was not posted in the branch from where alleged mortgaged deed was executed or auction was conducted. He also submitted that the property of respondent- defendant No.3 Sardar Virendra Agarwal was mortgaged in 1981, whereas Excise Department has attached the property in 1983 and CBI without ascertaining the facts, has filed a charge-sheet on false facts against the respondents. He also submitted that the mortgage deed executed in 1981 was also figured in entries of subsequent years, and the process adopted by respondents was bona fide. He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 9 SCC 577 and submitted that after a substantial delay in bank related matter, [2025:RJ-JP:16621] (4 of 7) [CRLR-429/2002] FIR was registered and charge-sheet was filed, Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceeding. He also submitted that now both the respondents have superannuated and they are more than 70 years of age, therefore, it is not in public interest to test the order of discharge after 24 years.

7. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsels for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the record.

8. For sake of brevity, we are not reproducing detailed facts, but in brief, an FIR No.23 (A/91) dated 31.07.1991 was registered by CBI, Jaipur against Bingopal Agarwal, Virendra Singh and Narayan Prasad Sharma, on the ground that Bingopal Agarwal and Narayan Prasad Sharma in conspiracy with Virendra Singh misusing their official positions during the year 1986 dishonestly and fraudulently attached and equitable mortgage No.1 (A/81) with empty date of 08.06.1981 in order to avoid auction of property of Virendra Singh, which was attached by State Excise Department during the year 1983 against Government dues to the tune of ₹26,10,902.52. After investigation, CBI has field charge- sheet against three persons (respondents). The CBI has also forwarded a series of documents to fortify charge-sheet against the respondents.

9. A perusal of record indicate that the respondents have filed a S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.132/1997 against the order dated 17.01.1997 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI, Cases), Jaipur in same case No.33/1992, as learned Special Judge has refused to drop the proceedings against respondents on the ground of lake of jurisdiction. A Coordinate Bench of this Court [2025:RJ-JP:16621] (5 of 7) [CRLR-429/2002] while considering the revision petition has dismissed the same. Thereafter when the matter was taken up for charge, the Trial Court has discharged the respondents-accused.

10. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.

11. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must [2025:RJ-JP:16621] (6 of 7) [CRLR-429/2002] proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the 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.

12. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge of application.

13. It is apparent on face of record that the Trial Court while considering discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has considered the documents submitted in defence. A larger Bench in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 has held that the accused has no right to produce defence evidence at the stage of framing of charge. The legal position for consideration of material at the stage of charge is referred herein above and it indicate that the Trial Court cannot adopt a methodology conducting roving enquiry.

14. In case of CBI Vs. Hari Singh Raka (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar allegation about claim [2025:RJ-JP:16621] (7 of 7) [CRLR-429/2002] settlement and monetary loss suffered by bank has set aside the order of discharge and remitted back the matter. In case of State of Maharashta Through CBI Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra) again reiterating substantial issue of prism of fiscal purity has set aside the order of discharge and remitted back the matter.

15. Having considered the legal position as mentioned herein above, it is apparent on record that the Trial Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while discharging the respondents. Though, we are considering the revision petition after 24 years, but herein this case, when the alleged act was committed in 1986 and FIR was registered in 1991 and charge-sheet was filed without any delay, therefore, there is no ground to give benefit of delay in Court process to respondents No.1 and 2. Thus, they are not entitled to seek benefit from principle of law as laid down in case of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra).

16. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and order dated 25.07.2001 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI, Cases), Jaipur is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Special Judge (CBI, Cases) No.1, Jaipur for fresh consideration at the stage of charge.

17. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on

12.05.2025. GAURAV /191 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J