HEM CHAND versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 13-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 985 
HEM CHAND 
A 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2008) 
MARCH 13, 2008 
B 
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 13(2) rlw 13(1 )(e) 
-
Charges of corruption against Executive Director 
(Vigilance)in Government Company -
Accused filed c 
application for discharge and filed some documents in his 
defence - Special Judge, CBI dismissed the application 
holding that documents relied on by appellant could not be 
looked into for passing order on his application - Propriety of 
- Held: Proper - The Court at the stage of framing charge 
D 
exercises a limited jurisdiction - It would only have to see as 
to whether a prima facie case has been made out - At that 
stage, it woald not delve deep into the matter for purpose of 
appreciation of evidence - It would ordinarily not consider as 
to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, 
E 
if any. 
Appellant, Executive Director (Vigilance) in a 
Government Company, faced trial for alleged commission 
of offence under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 on charges of corruption. It was F 
.._, 
alleged that he was in possession of assets more than 
his known sources of income. Charge-sheet was filed. 
Appellant filed application for discharge and filed some 
documents in his defence. The Special Judge, CBI 
dismissed the application holding that documents relied 
G 
on by Appellant could not be looked into for passing order 
on his application. Revision application filed by appellant 
under s.397 CrPC was dismissed by the High Court. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
985 
H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A present appeal is as to whether the documents, 
whereupon the Appellant relied upon in support of his 
defence, can be looked into at the stage of framing of the 
charges .. 
The contention of the Appellant is that it was evident 
8 that the CBI itself had seized the said documents from 
the residence of the appellant and hence, he could rely 
thereupon. 
The State, on the other hand, submitted that the 
c appellant intended to rely upon some documents which 
were filed before the Special Judge for the first time, 
hence, the impugned judgment of High Court should not 
be interfered with. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. At the stage of framing of charge, the 
Court will not weigh the evidence. The stage for 
appreciating the evidence for the purpose of ·~rriving at a 
conclusion as to whether the prosecution was able to 
bring home the charge against the accused or not would 
E arise only after all the evidences are brought on records 
at the trial. [Para 8] [989-G, H; 990-A] 
1.2 The documents whereupon the appellant 
intended to rely upon were: (i) an order of assessment 
F passed by the Income Tax Authority and (ii) his declaration 
of assets. It is one thing to say that on the basis of the 
admitted documents, the appellant was in a position to 
show that the charges could not have been framed against 
him, but it is another thing to say that for the said purpose 
G he could rely upon some documents whereupon the 
prosecution would not rely upon [Paras 8, 9] [990-B, C] 
1.3 The Special Judge, CBI noticed that sixteen 
number of documents had been filed by the appellant 
together with his application for discharge. The 
H prosecution has also relied upon a large number of 
• 
e 
HEM CHAND v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 
987 
documents which were 56 in number, out of which 5 being A 
related to the matter of investigation, have nothing to do 
with the merit of the matter. Out of the 51 documents, 
seventeen related to the expenditure purported to have 
_J 
been incurred by the appellant. Four documents related 
to income of the appellant's wife. Out of remaining 30 
B 
documents, 6 documents related to the assets of his wife 
exclusively and one related to his mother's assets. 23 
"'I 
documents, thus, related to the assets of the appellant 
which are reflected in his declaration of assets made 
annually by him. [Para 10] [990-D, E, F] 
c 
1.4 What has been refused to be looked into by the 
Special Judge. CBI related the documents filed by the 
appellant alongwith his application for discharge. The 
Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited 
D 
jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a 
prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of 
probable conviction for commission of an

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