Supreme Court overturns discharge order in bribery case: State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021)

Date of the Judgment: April 13, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 208
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a High Court quash charges framed by a lower court in a corruption case, based on its own evaluation of evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question. This case revolves around allegations of bribery against a Patwari (a land record official) in Rajasthan. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the scope of the High Court’s power during revision against framing of charges. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud concurring.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed on August 31, 2010, by Jai Kishore, alleging that Ashok Kumar Kashyap, a Patwari, demanded a bribe of ₹2,800. The bribe was allegedly for endorsing a report on Jai Kishore’s application for his son’s Domicile and OBC certificates. The Anti-Corruption Bureau investigated and filed a charge sheet against Kashyap under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur, framed charges against Kashyap on June 22, 2018. Kashyap then challenged this order in the High Court of Rajasthan.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur, after considering the material on record, including a transcript of a conversation between the complainant and the accused, framed charges against the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused then filed a revision application before the High Court of Rajasthan, arguing that no case was made out under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court, in its judgment dated September 12, 2018, quashed the charges and discharged the accused, stating that there was no specific demand for a bribe and that no matter was pending before the accused on the date of the alleged demand.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which deals with the offence of taking gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act. The section states:
“Section 7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.—Any public servant who,—
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person; or
(c) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for the exercise of his personal influence with any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The Supreme Court also considered Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the procedure for discharge of an accused.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan (Appellant):

• The High Court erred in discharging the accused by evaluating the evidence on merits, which is not permissible at the stage of framing charges.
• The High Court should have only considered whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused.
• The transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused indicated a demand for illegal gratification.
• Even an attempt to obtain illegal gratification is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial at the stage of considering the discharge application.
• Relied on P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, Srilekha Sentil Kumar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, (2019) 7 SCC 82, Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148, and State of Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515.

Arguments by the Respondent-Accused (Ashok Kumar Kashyap):

• The High Court rightly discharged the accused as no case was made out under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The accused had refused to issue the residence certificate and caste certificate as the complainant was a resident of Agra, not Rajasthan.
• The accused had already rejected the complainant’s application on August 29, 2010, and no matter was pending before him.
• The trap failed, and the accused refused to accept the bribe.
• The conversation transcript was mixed, and the accused did not demand a bribe from the complainant.
• The High Court was justified in evaluating the evidence to determine if there was sufficient material to make out a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• Relied on Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135.

The innovativeness in the argument by the State was that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial at the stage of considering the discharge application.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in discharging the accused at the stage of framing charges, based on its own evaluation of evidence, and whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising revisional powers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 – Supreme Court of India: The court discussed the scope of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and held that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
• State of Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 – Supreme Court of India: The Court reiterated that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine whether the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.
• Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which defines the offence of taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
• Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the procedure for discharge of an accused.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398: The Supreme Court followed this case to reiterate that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
• State of Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515: The Supreme Court followed this case to emphasize that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine whether the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.
• Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, clarifying that while the court can sift evidence to determine a prima facie case, it cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of framing charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspects of the case. The Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by evaluating the evidence on merits at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court focused on the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists, and not conduct a mini-trial or assess the likelihood of conviction. The Court also emphasized that even an attempt to commit the offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable. The court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that the legal process is followed correctly and that cases are not dismissed prematurely based on a detailed evaluation of evidence that should be done at the trial stage.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial at the stage of discharge. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists. The court also noted that even an attempt to commit the offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “While considering the legality of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the law on the subject and few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to.”
• “At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence.”
• “Defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of the charge and/or at the stage of discharge application.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed on the final judgment.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence on merits at the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application.
• At the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists.
• Even an attempt to commit an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that the trial court should decide the merits of the case after a full trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Special Judge framing charges against the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court directed that the case be tried against the accused by the competent court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that at the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists, and not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence on merits. This judgment reinforces the established legal position that the trial court should decide the merits of the case after a full trial and clarifies the scope of the High Court’s powers of revision in such matters. This judgment does not change the existing law but reaffirms the settled principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to discharge the accused, Ashok Kumar Kashyap, in a bribery case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating evidence on merits at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court emphasized that at this stage, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists and that even an attempt to commit the offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.