ASIM SHARIFF versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
799
ASIM SHARIFF
v.
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
(Criminal Appeal No. 949 of  2019)
JULY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 227 – Discharge under – Sought by appellant-accused
alongwith other accused – From the charges u/ss. 120B, 109, 150,
153A, 302, 201 r/w s. 34 IPC; u/ss. 3 and 27 of Arms Act; and u/ss.
16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act –
Application dismissed by trial court – Dismissal order affirmed by
High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: While examining
the discharge application u/s. 227, court is expected to exercise its
judicial mind to determine as to whether prima facie case is made
out against the accused – The facts of the present case persuaded
the trial court to arrive at a conclusion that prima facie case of
alleged offences were made out, truth and veracity of which was to
be examined during the course of trial – Order of courts below do
not call for interference.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The Judge while considering the question of
framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases(which
is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out; where the material placed before
the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which
has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified
in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and
one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be
justified in discharging him. Thus, while examining the discharge
application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 799
799
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether
a case for trial has been made out or not.  It is true that in such
proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by
marshalling the evidence on record. [Para 19] [807-E-G]
2. The facts of the present case persuaded the Court to
arrive to a conclusion that there is a prima facie material of
conspiracy among the accused persons giving rise to sufficient
grounds of subjective satisfaction of prima facie case of alleged
offences of conspiracy being hatched among the accused persons
and truth & veracity of such conspiracy is to be examined during
the course of trial.  There is no error in the judgment passed by
the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. [Paras 23 and
24] [810-A-C]
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors. (1979)
3 SCC 4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229 ; Sajjan Kumar v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11
SCR 669 ; State v. S. Selvi and Ors. (2018) 13 SCC
455 ; Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
(2019) 6 SCALE 794 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1979] 2 SCR 229
relied on
Para 16
[2010] 11 SCR 669
relied on
Para 17
(2018) 13 SCC 455
relied on
Para 18
(2019) 6 SCALE 794
relied on
Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 949 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2018 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 13891 of 2018.
Kamini Jaiswal, Abdul Rahiman, Shereef K.A., Ms. Rani Mishra,
Jatinderpal Singh., Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Kanu Agrawal, B.
V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant
against whom a criminal case bearing no. RC 04/16-NIA-HYD came
to be registered along with four other accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with
Section 34 of IPC; Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections
15,16,17,18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act,
1967(hereinafter being referred to as “UAP Act”).
3. After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted
before the trial Court against the accused persons including appellant.
The appellant claims that there was no material for registering the criminal
case neither investigating nor submitting the final report against him.  At
this stage, the appellant filed application under Section 227 of Code of
Criminal Proce

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.