KANCHAN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 14-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
KANCHAN KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1562 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM
SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.227, 228 –
Discharge application – Requirement of prime facie case for
framing of charges – FIR filed against appellant under ss.13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging
that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known source
of income – Charge-sheet filed against him indicated that he
earned a total income of Rs. 3,01,561 and incurred an expenditure
of Rs. 5,24,386 during the check period – Thus, charge was of
having amassed Rs. 2,22,825, disproportionate to his known sources
of income – Appellant filed discharge application before the Special
Judge alleging that there were glaring errors in the calculation –
Application was summarily dismissed – High Court dismissed the
revision application while observing that the contention raised by
the appellant needed proper verification attracting roving enquiry
which could be permissible only during course of trial – On appeal,
held: The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate a discharge
application under s.227 is to consider the broad probabilities of
the case and the total effect of the material on record, including
examination of any infirmities appearing in the case – Expenditure
amount of Rs. 5,24,386 as alleged in the charge-sheet is based on
certain mistakes – Total expenditure was only Rs. 2,69,355 and not
Rs. 5,24,386 – It was this expenditure of Rs. 2,69,355 which was
contrasted with the income of Rs. 3,01,561 during the check period
– This simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication of
an application for discharge clearly demonstrated that there was
no prima facie case made out by the prosecution in the case –
Moreover, considering the delay involved in the case, the
continuation of prosecution would also be unjust.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 188
188
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate
an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to consider
the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the
material on record, including examination of any infirmities
appearing in the case. [Para 13][195-B-C]
2.1 It is appropriate and in fact sufficient to confine inquiry
to three heads of expenditure indicated in the chargesheet itself.
This limited inquiry will also satisfy the requirements of Section
227 of the Cr.P.C. [ Para 16.1][197-D-E]
2.2 The first objection pertains to the inclusion an amount
of Rs. 55,000, recorded as the balance amount in the Appellant’s
bank account during the check period, and accordingly counted
as expenditure in the charge sheet. However, the Bank Passbook
filed by the Appellant, which was available to the Investigation
Officer and the Special Judge (Vigilance), evidently records a
balance amount of only Rs. 11,998 during the checkperiod. The
difference in the figures was not explained by the Prosecution.
Accordingly, the Special Judge (Vigilance) and the High Court
failed to reconcile such a simple and straightforward inconsistency
in the Prosecution’s evidence. [Para 16.2][197-E-G]
2.3 The second objection relates to the inclusion of an
amount of Rs. 53,467 as expenditure towards repayment of the
loan from the BSFC. However, the amount repaid towards loan
instalments was already deducted from Appellant’s gross salary,
and the deducted figure was recorded as the total disposable
income with the Appellant during the check period. Hence, the
loan repayment cannot be separately counted as an expenditure
yet again. This is a glaring mistake. [Para 16.3][197-H; 198-A-B]
 2.4 The third objection relates to the inclusion of
Rs. 1,58,562 as the value of the articles found during a search
conducted in Appellant’s house on 21.02.2000, twelve years after
the check period of 1974 to 1988. There is nothing to indicate,
even prima facie, that these articles found during the search in
KANCHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
the year 2000 were acquired during the check period. In the
absence of any material to link these articles as having been
acquired during the check period, it is impermissible to include
their value in the expenditure. Appellant’s objection about
inclusion of this amount in the list of expenditure is fully justified
[Par

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