SOMA CHAKRAVARTY versus STATE THROUGH CBI

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 10-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SOMA CHAKRA V AR1Y 
v. 
STA TE THROUGH CBI 
MAY 10, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Framing of Charges-Allegation of misappropriation 
of huge amount of Government money-Revision Petition challenging the 
C framing of charges-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held-Per Ka/ju, 
J.: There was sufficient material to frame the charge, hence not interfered 
wirh-Per Sinha, J : There is lacuna in framing of charges-But the same 
not interfered with because trial has reached the stage of examination of 
witnesses and there is likelihood of early disposal of the matter-Penal 
Code, 1860-s. 420 rlw ss. 120-B, 429, 468 and 471-Prevention of Corruption 
D Act, 1988. 
E 
Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused and co-
accused u/s 420 r/w ss. 120-B, 429, 468 and 471 IPC and various provisions 
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegations were that six bogus firms 
claiming to have published advertisements, submitted 76 bogus bills worth 
Rs.30,30,057 /- for payment by signing under fictitious names. The bills had 
not been entered in bill register and no file had been opened in respect of 
these firms. The file numbers written on the fictitious bills were also fake. 
Out of the 76 bills, 14 (pertaining to ad-hoc advertisement) were dishonestly 
processed by the appellant-accused and co-accused. All the bills were filled 
F 
by another co-accused who was neither posted in the publicity division nor 
was he authorized to do so. Appellant-accused was also not the incharge of 
ad hoc advertisements. None of the bills bore initials or signatures of the 
incharge of the ad hoc advertisements. The bills were also not sanctioned I 
approved by the competent authority. 
G 
The Revision Petition challenging the order of trial court, was 
dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Per Markandey Katju, J. 
H 
324 
....... 
·} 
SOMACHAKRAVARTYv.STATETHROUGHCBI 
325 
l. If on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion A 
that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though 
for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt 
that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the 
charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, 
and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as 
true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial B 
mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the 
commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the 
accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. 
(Para llJ (329-H; 330-A, Bl 
2. It cannot be said that no charge could be framed against the appellant C 
as there was no material to show that she was primafacie guilty or had any 
mens rea. The facts of the present case disclose that advertisements of six 
bogus firms had been published and 76 bogus bills worth Rs.30.30,057/- were 
submitted for payment by signing under fictitious names. Out of these 76 
bogus bills 14 were said to be dishonestly processed and verified and signed D 
by the appellant and the co-accused. All the bogus bills were filled by another 
co-accused who was neither posted in the publicity division nor was authorized 
to do so. These bogus bills had not been entered in the bills register of the 
ITPO and no file had been opened or created in respect of these firms claiming 
to have published the advertisements. The file numbers written on the fictitious 
bills were also fake. None of these bills bore the initial or signatures of the E 
incharge of the ITPO at the relevant time. [Paras 12 and 13] (330-C, D, El 
3. It cannot be said that the appellant had signed the bills in the normal 
course of her duty and it was the Accounts section which was negligent in 
not verifying these bills. Once a person signs on a document he or she is 
expected to make some enquiry before signing it. In fact, appellant-accused F 
was never assigned any duty in respect of processing or signing the bills for 
ad hoc advertisements, and she was assigned duty only of regular 
advertisements. Moreover, these bills were not sanctioned/approved by the 
competent authority i.e. the Chairman/Executive Director. 
[Paras 14 and 15) [330-F, G, H 
4. There are serious allegations of misappropriation of a huge amount 
of money belonging to the 

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