Supreme Court Upholds Charges Against Public Servant in Disproportionate Assets Case: State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) INSC 894 (09 October 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 09 October 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 894
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturn a trial court’s decision to frame charges against an accused, especially when the accused presents a defense at the discharge stage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning disproportionate assets of a public servant. The Court clarified the scope of the High Court’s revisional powers and the trial court’s role at the stage of framing charges. The judgment was authored by Justice Aravind Kumar, with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat concurring.

Case Background

The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was accused of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period of 2005 to 2011. The prosecution alleged that he amassed assets worth ₹1,15,35,319, with disproportionate assets amounting to ₹32,68,258, which was more than 40% of his known income. The charges were based on the premise that the respondent misused his position and engaged in corrupt practices.

The respondent filed an application for discharge, arguing that the Investigating Officer (IO) had failed to consider his written explanation and supporting documents, including details of property purchases and loans taken. He contended that the sanctioning authority also did not properly consider these documents, leading to an erroneous conclusion about his disproportionate assets.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court rejected the respondent’s discharge application, holding that the issues raised by the respondent, such as loans from family and friends, were questions of fact to be decided during the trial. The Trial Court noted that the charge-sheet material prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the offense of possessing disproportionate assets. The court also observed that the explanation given by the accused was considered while filing the charge sheet and granting sanction.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s order, the respondent filed a revision application before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision application, concluding that the trial court had erred in dismissing the discharge application. The High Court, after perusing the material presented by the respondent, effectively accepted the respondent’s defense and discharged him.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly concerning the offense of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are:

• Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the discharge of the accused. It states that if, upon considering the record of the case and the documents submitted, the judge finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, they shall be discharged.
• Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the framing of charges. If, after considering the material, the judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense, the charge shall be framed.
• Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.: This section grants revisional powers to the High Court to examine the records of an inferior court to ensure the legality and regularity of any proceedings or orders.
• Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the High Court’s powers of revision.

Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to consider the written explanation provided by the respondent, along with supporting documents.
• The IO did not take into account the permission obtained by the respondent to visit Australia and the details of property purchases furnished to the department.
• The sanctioning authority also did not consider the documentary proof of property purchases from various income sources.
• The IO failed to consider the loan amounts taken from friends and family, which were supported by documentary evidence.
• The respondent argued that the charge-sheet material did not disclose the commission of the alleged offense, and therefore, he should be discharged.

State’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and accepting the respondent’s defense at the stage of framing charges.
• The prosecution contended that the trial court had correctly applied the law by considering the charge-sheet material and finding a prima facie case against the respondent.
• The prosecution argued that the issues raised by the respondent were matters of defense that should be addressed during the trial, not at the stage of discharge.
• The prosecution emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s order unless there was a patent defect or error of law.

The respondent’s arguments focused on the alleged failure of the IO and the sanctioning authority to consider the evidence submitted by him. The State’s arguments, on the other hand, centered on the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the trial court’s role in framing charges based on the charge sheet material.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the order of the sanctioning authority dated 05.03.2015 is liable to be set aside, and consequently, whether the charge-sheet filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 17.06.2015 is liable to be quashed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan And Others (2014) 11 SCC 709* to reinforce that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must assume the prosecution’s material to be true and evaluate if it discloses the necessary ingredients of the alleged offense.
• The Court referred to State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659* and State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338* to emphasize that at the stage of framing charges, the court has to form a presumptive opinion about the existence of factual ingredients constituting the alleged offense and it is not expected to delve into the probative value of the material.
• The Court cited Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460* to explain the limited scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., stating that it is meant to correct patent defects or errors of jurisdiction or law, not to re-appreciate evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Revisional Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court. The High Court should only interfere if there is a patent defect or error of law.
• Stage of Discharge: The Court reiterated that at the stage of discharge, the trial court is only required to consider the charge-sheet material and determine if a prima facie case exists. The defense of the accused is not to be considered at this stage.
• Prima Facie Case: The Court found that the trial court had correctly applied the law by considering the charge-sheet material and finding a prima facie case against the respondent. The issues raised by the respondent were matters of defense that should be addressed during the trial, not at the stage of discharge.
• Presumption of Truth: The Court reiterated the principle that at the stage of considering a discharge application, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true.

The sentiment analysis reveals that the Court was primarily concerned with the legal principles governing revisional jurisdiction and the stage of discharge. The ratio of fact to law indicates that the Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations than by the specific facts of the case.

The Court’s reasoning was structured around the legal framework governing the powers of the High Court and the Trial Court at different stages of a criminal proceeding. The flowchart illustrates the logical progression of the Court’s analysis.

The Court considered and rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the defense evidence should be considered at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s role in revision is not to re-evaluate evidence but to correct errors of law or procedure. The decision was reached by applying established legal principles to the facts of the case, ensuring that the trial court’s order was upheld and the case could proceed to trial.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in interfering with the trial court’s order. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and accepting the respondent’s defense at the stage of framing charges. The Court stated that the trial court had correctly applied the law by considering the charge-sheet material and finding a prima facie case against the respondent. The issues raised by the respondent were matters of defense that should be addressed during the trial, not at the stage of discharge.

“It is trite law 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 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 offence.”

“The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution.”

“The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case.”

Key Takeaways

• Limited Revisional Jurisdiction: High Courts should exercise their revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. sparingly and only to correct patent defects or errors of law, not to re-appreciate evidence.
• Discharge Stage: At the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court should only consider the charge-sheet material and determine if a prima facie case exists. The defense of the accused should not be considered at this stage.
• Presumption of Truth: The court must assume that the prosecution’s material is true at the stage of considering a discharge application.
• Trial is Necessary: Issues raised by the accused that require factual adjudication should be addressed during the trial, not at the stage of discharge.

This judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the stage of discharge. It clarifies that the High Court should not interfere with the trial court’s order unless there is a clear error of law or procedure. The judgment will likely impact future cases by ensuring that the trial courts are allowed to proceed with trials based on the charge-sheet material without undue interference from the High Courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year, considering that the charge-sheet was filed in 2015.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion about any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., should not interfere with a trial court’s order framing charges unless there is a patent defect or error of law. The High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court at the stage of framing charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that at the stage of discharge, the trial court should only consider the charge-sheet material and determine if a prima facie case exists, without delving into the defense of the accused. This decision upholds the established legal principles and ensures a clear separation of powers between the trial court and the High Court during the initial stages of a criminal trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat, setting aside the High Court’s order that had discharged the respondent. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to frame charges against the respondent, emphasizing that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and accepting the respondent’s defense prematurely. The Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the trial court’s role at the stage of framing charges, ensuring that the trial court can proceed with the trial based on the charge-sheet material.