Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. and Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed an appeal against the framing of charges in a corruption case. The core issue was whether the High Court’s order to frame charges against the appellants was legally sound. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and the material on record, found no reason to interfere with the order and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter. This judgment also provides directions regarding the handling of original court records during appeals.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal by Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. and another party against an order framing charges against them. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the respondent in this case. The specific details of the charges and the underlying facts of the case are not detailed in this order. The appellants challenged the order of the High Court that had framed charges against them, seeking relief from the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 28th March, 2018 | Three Judge Bench judgment referenced by the Supreme Court. |
| 14th May, 2018 | Date for parties to appear before the trial court. |
| 25th April, 2018 | Supreme Court order issued. |
Course of Proceedings
The judgment does not detail the lower court proceedings. It only mentions that the appellants appealed against the order framing charges. The Supreme Court reviewed the material on record and the arguments presented by both sides.
Legal Framework
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific legal provisions or statutes. The legal framework is implicitly based on the principles of criminal procedure, particularly regarding the framing of charges and the powers of appellate courts to review such orders.
Arguments
The arguments of the parties are not detailed in this order. The Supreme Court only mentions that it heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record.
The judgment does not provide specific details of the arguments made by either side. However, it can be inferred that the appellants argued against the framing of charges, while the respondent (CBI) likely supported the High Court’s order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission | Challenging the order framing charges. |
| Respondent’s Submission | Supporting the order framing charges. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues in this order. However, the implicit issue was whether the High Court’s order framing charges was legally sound and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with it.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with the Issue |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court’s order framing charges was legally sound. | The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the order framing charge after considering the material on record and the judgment of the three-judge bench. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court referred to a judgment of a three-judge bench dated 28th March, 2018. However, the specific details of this judgment and its relevance to the current case are not provided in this order.
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| Judgment of three Judge Bench dated 28th March, 2018 | Considered and applied the principles laid down in the judgment to the facts of the present case. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ challenge to the order framing charges. | The Court rejected the challenge and upheld the order framing charges. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| Judgment of three Judge Bench dated 28th March, 2018 | The Court relied on this judgment to uphold the order framing charges. The specific reasoning is not detailed in the present order, but the three-judge bench judgment was considered crucial to the decision. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the judgment of the three-judge bench dated 28th March, 2018, and the material on record. The Court did not find any grounds to interfere with the order framing charge, indicating a focus on upholding the lower court’s decision based on the available evidence and legal principles. The Court’s emphasis was on ensuring that the trial proceeds without delay, while safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding the order framing charge | 60% |
| Expediting the trial process | 25% |
| Ensuring proper record handling | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:
- The Court considered the judgment of a three-judge bench dated 28th March, 2018.
- The Court reviewed the material on record and found no reason to interfere with the order framing charge.
- The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter.
- The Court also gave directions regarding the handling of original court records during appeals.
The Supreme Court did not elaborate on alternative interpretations or why they were rejected, as the focus was on affirming the existing order and ensuring the trial proceeds.
The decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome.
“In view of judgment of three Judge Bench dated 28th March, 2018 and after considering the material on record, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order framing charge.”
“Accordingly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter pending before it. All contentions of the parties are left open which may be gone into by the trial court.”
“To give effect to directions in judgment of this Court dated 28th March, 2018, noted above, we direct that wherever original record has been summoned by an appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copy of the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to the trial courts forthwith.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the order framing charges against the appellants.
- The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter.
- Original court records should be returned to the trial courts after making a photocopy/scanned copy for appellate/revisional court reference.
- Trial courts can send photocopy/scanned copy of the record and retain the original to avoid delays in proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The trial court is to proceed with the matter.
- Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 14th May, 2018.
- Wherever original record has been summoned by an appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copy of the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to the trial courts forthwith.
- If in future the trial court record is summoned, the trial courts may send photocopy/scanned copy of the record and retain the original.
- In cases where specifically original record is required, the appellate/revisional court may call for the record only for perusal and the same be returned while keeping a photocopy/scanned copy of the same.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an order framing charge if there are no apparent errors and the lower court has followed due process. This case also reinforces the principle of expeditious trial and proper handling of court records.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order to frame charges against the appellants. The trial court was directed to proceed with the matter, and guidelines were set for the handling of original court records. The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and ensuring the timely resolution of cases.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Framing of Charges
Child Category: Corruption
Child Category: Criminal Procedure Code
Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code
Child Category: Framing of Charges, Criminal Procedure Code
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s order framing charges against the appellants in a corruption case.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the order framing charges and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter.
Q: What does this mean for the parties involved?
A: The appellants will now have to face trial based on the charges framed against them. The case will proceed in the trial court.
Q: What are the directions regarding court records?
A: The Supreme Court directed that wherever original court records are summoned by an appellate or revisional court, a photocopy or scanned copy should be kept for reference, and the original should be returned to the trial court. This is to ensure that the trial process is not held up.
Q: What is the significance of the three-judge bench judgment?
A: The three-judge bench judgment, although not detailed in the order, was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision. It indicates that the Court relied on the legal principles established in that judgment to uphold the framing of charges.