Supreme Court overturns discharge of police officers in corruption case: State of Tamil Nadu vs J. Doraiswamy (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the discharge of the accused under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Case Name: State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu vs. J. Doraiswamy Etc. [Judgment Date]: March 07, 2019

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 07, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 197
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a High Court, while hearing a revision against a discharge order, act like an appellate court and appreciate evidence to find inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, overturning the discharge of two police officers accused of corruption. The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the extent of a court’s power when reviewing a discharge application. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves two police officers, J. Doraiswamy (A-1), an Inspector of Police, and another officer (A-2), a Sub-Inspector of Police, both from the Tamil Nadu Police Services. They were accused of offences under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that they had demanded and accepted a bribe. The case was registered as Crime Case No. 3 of 2008, which later became Special Case No. 4 of 2014 in the Court of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.

After the charge sheet was filed, the accused filed applications under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking discharge from the case. They argued that no prima facie case was made out against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) allowed the discharge applications of the accused on 29.06.2015, stating that no prima facie case was made out against them. The State, aggrieved by this order, filed revisions before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court dismissed the revisions on 14.07.2016, affirming the CJM’s order. The State then approached the Supreme Court of India by way of special leave.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the discharge of an accused. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. states:

“If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10 SCC 394], which outlines the scope of a court’s power under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

Arguments

Appellant (State):

• The State argued that the High Court acted as an appellate court rather than a revisional court while considering the discharge applications.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in appreciating the evidence and finding inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, which is not permissible at the stage of discharge.
• The State submitted that there was sufficient material to frame charges against the accused and the High Court should have allowed the trial to proceed.

Respondents (Accused):

• The respondents argued that no prima facie case was made out against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• They contended that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the statements of two witnesses, which had material contradictions.
• The respondents also pointed out that the departmental proceedings against them for the same set of facts resulted in their exoneration.

The respondents argued that the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, particularly regarding the date of the alleged bribe payment, were significant enough to warrant their discharge. They also emphasized that the prosecution had not produced any documentary evidence to show their presence in the room where the bribe was allegedly paid.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents innovatively argued that their exoneration in departmental proceedings, coupled with the inconsistencies in the witness statements, warranted their discharge, despite the legal position that exoneration in departmental proceedings is not a sole ground for discharge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Courts below were justified in allowing the discharge applications filed by the respondents under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10 SCC 394]* and held that the High Court had not properly applied the principles laid down in this case.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973* to highlight that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not to act as an appellate court and appreciate evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that at the stage of framing charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the court should not act as an appellate court and appreciate the evidence in detail. The court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the inconsistencies of witness statements and acting as if it was hearing an appeal rather than a revision. The court also noted that there was sufficient material to frame charges, and the trial should proceed. The court noted that the High Court had erred in not properly applying the principles laid down in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10 SCC 394]*.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach was not legally correct. The Court observed:

“While considering the case of discharge sought immediately after the charge-sheet is filed, the Court cannot become an Appellate Court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses as was done by the High Court in the impugned order running in 19 pages. It is not legally permissible.”

The Court further stated:

“All that we say while allowing these appeals is that there is no prime facie case made out for discharge of the respondents at this stage of the trial. They, therefore, have to stand for trial on merits in the light of the documents and contents of charge-sheet filed pursuant to the order of the Court.”

The Court also clarified:

“The Special Court (CJM) should have, therefore, allowed the State to adduce the evidence on merits in support of the charge-sheet to prove the charges.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authoring the opinion.

Key Takeaways

• At the stage of framing charges under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a court should not act as an appellate court and appreciate evidence in detail.
• The court’s role at this stage is to determine if there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial, not to assess the credibility of witnesses or find inconsistencies in their statements.
• Exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot be the sole ground for discharge in criminal proceedings.
• The High Court should not delve into the merits of the case at the stage of revision against a discharge order.
• The trial court should allow the prosecution to adduce evidence to prove the charges.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Special Court (CJM) to proceed with the trial and conclude it within six months in accordance with law. The Special Court was directed to decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties in the trial, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court and the Supreme Court in these proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction while acting as an appellate court and appreciating evidence at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that at the stage of framing charges, the court should not act as an appellate court and appreciate the evidence in detail. This judgment reinforces the principle that the trial court should allow the prosecution to adduce evidence to prove the charges instead of dismissing the case at the threshold based on inconsistencies in witness statements. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State, set aside the High Court’s order, and dismissed the discharge applications filed by the accused. The case was remanded to the Special Court (CJM) for trial on merits. The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and emphasizes that the High Court should not act as an appellate court while considering a revision against a discharge order.