LexSAJJAN KUMAR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 669 SAJJAN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.J A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.227, 228' - Discharge/Framing of charge - Held: While considering the discharge petition filed u/s.227 or at the stage of framing of C charge u/s. 228, it is not for the judge/magistrate to analysfJ all the ma.terials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability - It is at the trial, that the judge has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statements, veracity of various documents and ifthere is "not o sufficient ground" for proceeding against the accused, he· shall discharge the accused by recording reasons - In exercising jurisdiction u/s.227, magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial - At the time. of E framing of the charges, the probative val.ue of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence .by the accused was possible - Principles as regards the scope of ss.227 and 228 - Enumerated - The instant case related to 1984. anti-sikh riots in respect of certain deaths - The framing of charges on the basis of certain statements made after a gap of 23 years was neither bad in law norabuse: F of process of law or without any material - High Court rightly affirmed the same - Delay!laches. G Delay/laches: Inordinate delay in framing of charges on the basis of certain statements made after a gap of 23 years - Held: Though delay is a relevant factor and every accused 669 H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. A is entitled to speedy justice in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, ultimately it depends upon various factors! reasons and materials placed by the prosecution - In the instant case, in the light of the materials which are available before the court through CBI, without testing the same at the 8 trial, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay - Those materials have to be tested in the context of prejudice to the accused only at the trial - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21. In the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, FIRs were lodged in C respect of certain deaths, which ended in acquittals. The investigation pertaining to the death of family members of PW-1 was re-opened by the anti-riot Cell of Delhi Police in the year 2002 and after investigation, a closure report was filed in the court on 15122.12.2005. After filing of the D closure report, on 31.07 .2008, a Status Report was filed by the Delhi Police. Meanwhile, pursuant to the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission, the Government of India had entrusted the investigation to the CBI on 24.10.2005. On receipt of the said E communication, the respondent-CBI had registered a formal FIR on 22.11.2005. The closure report was filed by Delhi Police on 15.12.2005/22.12.2005, when a case had already been registered by the CBI on 22.11.2005 and the documents had already transferred to the respondent- F CBI. After fresh investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet on 13.01.2010. After committal, charges were framed on 15.05.2010. The appellant filed a petition for discharge before the Special Court, which was dismissed. He filed G a revision before the High Court which was also dismissed. H In the instant appeal, it was· contended for the appellant that the statement of PW-1 was highly doubtful SAJJAN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 671 INVESTIGATION and, therefore, could not be relied upon to frame the A charges against the appellant; that because of long delay, the continuation of the prosecution and framing of charges on the basis of certain statements made after a gap of 23 years could not be accepted and it would go against the protection provided under Article 21 of the B Constitution; and that certain observations were made in the order of the High Court which would affect the mind of the trial judge to take independent conclusion and, therefore, were unwarranted. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A perusal of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the judge concerned has to consider c all the records of the case, the documents placed before him, hear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.