HARDEO SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 11-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARDEO SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
MAY 11, 2000 
B 
(G.B. PATTANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-Sections l 20B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 A-
Prevention of Corruption Act-Ss.5(J)(a), 5(J)(c), 4(1)(d)- Charge sheet 
as against Appellant for conspiracy-For obtaining loans from main accused, 
C a bank employee-Beyond financial limits-Main accused alleged to be in 
the habit of receiving illegal gratificatiori from a specified person-
Application for discharge by Appellant dismissed by Special Court-upheld 
by High Court-Whether Appellant is liable to be discharged-Held, No--
Some connecting link or connecting factor would be good enough for framing 
D of a charge--lt cannot be equated to establishing the charge of conspiracy. 
The Appellant alongwith others was charged under Sections 1208, 409, 
420, 468, 471, 477 A of IPC read with Sections S(l)(a), S(l)(c) and S(l)(d) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge sheet mentioned that one 'R' 
who was an employee of a Bank in connivance with some named accused in 
E the FIR had cheated the Bank of serval lakhs of rupees, misusing his official 
position. After investigation it was found that the said 'R' had granted 
overdraft facility to the Appellant transgressing his financial competence, on 
different dates. Though the FIR did not mention the Appellant as an accused, 
his name had been shown as a person receiving loan on breach of fina11cial 
obligation. 
F 
Special Judge took cognizance of the case and summons was issued to 
the Appellant. The Appellant after obtaining bail, applied for discharge alld to 
drop proceedings against him. Special Court dismissed the applicatio11 and 
held that there were sufficient materials existing for a prima facie case against 
G the accused person for framing of charges. 
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the Appellant before the High 
Court was dismissed. 
In appeal to his Court the Appellant contended that a specific person 
H has been named in the matter of formation of habit so far as illegal gratification 
222 
HARDEO SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
223 
is concerned and since the Appellant's name does not find any place, question A 
of continuation of proceedings as against the Appellant does not arise, and 
that the charge sheet has not mentioned the fact of repayment of the said loan 
by the Appellant within 46 days, being the shortest possible time which has 
to be viewed seriously. 
The Respondent contended that there is a charge under Section 1208 B 
and as such, question of setting the Appellant free at this stage does not arise, 
that the offence under Section 1208, is an independent offence and while it is 
true that the gist of the offence, is the agreement between two or more 
offenders but particular facts of the conspiracy need not even be shown in the 
charge, that some general evidence pertaining to the conspiracy would be C 
sufficient to form part of the charge of conspiracy in the chargesheet, and 
that since conspiracy is generally a matter of influence and since Appellant 
did take advantage of the overdraft facility knowing fully well that the same 
is beyond the financial limits of the Branch Manager, the natural inference 
may be drawn that the same must have been done upon some other 
consideration and it is the assessment of the same which should prompt the D 
court to thwart such an attempt. 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The allegation pertains to the factum of the habit of Branch 
manager, of receiving illegal gratification from a person however by itself E 
may or may not be sufficient to bring he. ne the charge of conspiracy but that 
by itself would not authorise the court to call it a day in regard to the charge 
of conspiracy on the wake of the factual matrix of the situation at this stage 
of proceedings. Criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean harassment 
and in the event the prosecution of this nature is allowed to be continued, it F 
would not be in our view a traversity of justice or any undue prejudice or even 
otherwise prejudicial since ultimately in the event the charge is not proved, 
he would be acquitted. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents herein 
does disclose the materials for scrutiny against the Appellant; as such the 
Court cannot assist the Appellant. (229-E-F) 
2. As a matter of fact some connecting link or connecting factor 
somewhere be good enough for framing of charge since framing of charge 
and to establi

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