MAUVIN GODINHO versus STATE OF GOA

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 17-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
MAUVIN GODINHO
v.
STATE OF GOA
(Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2011)
JANUARY 17, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
ss. 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.120-B IPC – Appellants-
accused were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120-B, 409, 420,
465 and 471 IPC and ss.13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w s.120-B IPC – High Court discharged
the accused u/ss. 120-B, 409, 420, 465 and 471 IPC, while
upholding the charges u/ss. 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention
of Corruption Act r/w s.120-B IPC – On appeal, held: Considering
the facts of the case in a holistic manner, there was no error in
framing charges as suggested by the High Court.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.227 – Framing of charges – Court while framing charges
should apply the prima facie standard – The standard depends on
facts of each case – A prima facie case against the accused is said
to be made out when the probative value of the evidence on all the
essential elements in the charge taken as a whole is such that it is
sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts
pertaining to such essential elements or to consider its existence so
probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that
those facts existed or did happen – However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
the evidence cannot be weighed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A court while framing charges under Section 227
of the Code of Criminal Procedure should apply the prima facie
standard. Although the application of this standard depends on
facts and circumstance in each case, a prima facie case against
the accused is said to be made out when the probative value of
the evidence on all the essential elements in the charge taken as
a whole is such that it is sufficient to induce the court to believe
821
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 821
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
in the existence of the facts pertaining to such essential elements
or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought
to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen.
However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the
pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial. [Para 12]  [827-A-C]
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11
SCR 669; State v. A. Arun Kumar (2015) 2 SCC 417 :
[2014] 11 SCR 319; State by the Inspector of Police,
Chennai v. S. Selvi and Ors. (2018) 1 SCALE 5 –
referred to.
2. In the present case, it cannot be said that no case can be
made out against the accused-appellants. The alleged
Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 were issued without
the approval of Cabinet and by violation of rules. Looking at the
facts of the case in a holistic manner, it is necessary to go into the
aspect of thorough examination of merits of the case, particularly
when the issue is still at the stage of framing of charges only.
There is no error in framing charges, as suggested by the High
Court, when presumably the material on record obligated the
Court to do so. [Para 13] [827-E-F]
MRF Limited v. Manohar Parrikar & Others (2010) 11
SCC 374 : [2010] 5 SCR1081; Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi (2003) 5 SCC 257 : [2003]
3 SCR 1118 – referred to
Case Law Reference
[2010] 5 SCR1081
referred to
Para 8
[2003] 3 SCR 1118
referred to
Para 9
[2010] 11 SCR 669
referred to
Para 12
[2014] 11 SCR 319
referred to
Para 12
(2018) 1 SCALE 5
referred to
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 315 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2007 of the High Court
of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 2007.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 314, 313, 312 and 311 OF 2011
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
823
M. L. Varma, Sr. Adv., Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Ms. Asha Gopalan
Nair, Ms. Nivedha Nair, Ms. Dimple Nagpal, Pitamber Dutt Nautiyal,
Triveni Potekar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Pratap Venugopal,
Ms. Surekha Raman, Anuj Sarma, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan (For M/s.
K J John and Co.), Umesh Kumar Khaitan,  Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V.  RAMANA,  J. 1. These Criminal Appeals, by way of
special leave, are filed by the appellants against a common order dated
26th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.