R.S. NAYAK versus A.R. ANTULAY & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 17-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

621 
a.s.~ 
v. 
A.R.. AtmJlAY & ANL 
APRIL 17 • 1986 
[ P. N. BHAGWATI, C. J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J .] 
~ 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 
Sections 245( 1) and 246 - Whether a charge should be 
framed against the accused or not - Test of 'prima facie' case 
to be applied. 
Sections 227, 239 and 245- Comparison between. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 
Sections 161 and 165 - Scope and differenCE! between -
Motive or reward for abuse of office - Relevancy of. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Sections 
415 
and 
420 
-
Ingredients 
of 
Cheating 
explained. 
r ~ 
E 
Sections 383 and 384 - "extortionn - Ingredients of. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 4 -Presumption 
raised under s. 4 is a presumption of law - It will have to be 
..... 
drawn against an accused once acceptance of a valuable thing 
-_, by him is proved. 
~ 
The respondent was at the relevant time Chief Minister 
of the State of MSharashtra. The appellant lodged a complaint 
on August 9, 1982 alleging comssion of offences by the 
respondent punishable under ss. 161, 165, 384 and 420 read 
with s. 120B, Indian Penal Ccie as also s. 5(2) read with s. 
S(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged in 
the complaint that the respondent, as the Chief Minister of 
~ the State, had created seven Trusts, one of them being Indira 
' 4 Gandhi Pratishthan shown to be a Government Trust and that he 
extended favours to those who JUde donations to the said 
trusts. In all the trusts, except the Indira Gandhi Pratibha 
Pratishthan, the respondent, his wife, close relations and 
friends were associated as trustees. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1986 J 2 S.C. R. 
The complaint was registered as Special Case No. 24/82. 
and was transferred to the High Court of Bombay for trial" 
under an order of this Court dated Feb. 16, 1984. Fifty-seven 
witnesses for prosecution were examined before the Trial Judge 
and 43 draft charges were placed for his consideration. The 
prosecution examdned specific witnesses with reference to the 
allegations supporting the draft charges and documents were 
also produced to support the allegations. The Trial Judge 
framed 21 charges against the respondent and discharged him i~~ 
respect of the remaining 22 charges relating to the offence of 
cheating, extortion and conspira~y. 
The appellant, aggrieved by the order refusing to frame 
charges on 22 heads b:f the Trial Judge, filed the present -Y-
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave. 
Allowing the appeal in part, 
HELD : (By the Court) 1.1 A prima facie case has been 
established by the prosecution in respect of the allegations 
for charges under ss. 120B, 161 and 165 and 420, IPC, as also 
under s. 5(1) read with s. 5(2) of the Act. So far as the 
three draft charges relating to the offence punishable under 
s. 384, IPC are concerned, the learned Trial Judge was right A_"' 
in holding that the prosecution failed to make out a prima 
facie case. Therefore, except in regard to the three draft 
charges under s. 384, IPC, charges in respect of the remaining 
!9 items shall be framed. The appeal is allowed to that 
extent. [696 D-F} 
-r-'" 
1.2 It is still open to the Trial Judge to consider on ( 
the material available, if anyone has to be proceeded against~ 
1.. 
as a co-conspirator when the charge of conspiracy punishable 
under s. 120-B, !PC is framed. Under s. 319 of the Code de 
novo trial would be necessary, but it is in the discretion of 
the Trial Court to take a decision as to whether keeping all 
aspects in view any other person should be brought in as an 
accused to be tried for any of the offences involved in the 
case. This is a matter in the discretion of the trial court. 
[697 F-H] 
~ 
Per Rauganatb Misra, J. (Bhagwati, C.J. Concurring) 
2.1 
The 
Code 
of 
Criminal 
Procedure 
contemplates 
, 
·• 
R.S. NAYAK v. A.R. ANTULAY 
623 
discharge of the accused by the Court of Sessions under s. 227 
~ in a case triable by it, cases instituted upon a police report 
are covered by s. 239 and cases instituted otherwise than on 
police report are dealt with in s. 245. The three sections 
contain somewhat different provisions in regard to discharge 
of the accused. Under s. 227, the trial Judge is required to 
discharge the accused if he "considers that there is no 
sufficient ground for proceeding against 
the accused. 
11 
Obligation to discharge the accus~d under s. 239 arises when 
~"the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be 
groundless." The power
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.