STATE OF GUJARAT versus DILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 09-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 847 : 2023 INSC 894
847
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
DILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO
(Criminal Appeal No. 2504 of 2023)
OCTOBER 09, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
allowing the application for discharge fi led by the accused; and as such 
whether the order of the sanctioning authority is liable to be set aside and 
consequently, the charge-sheet fi led by Anti-Corruption Bureau is liable 
to be quashed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 – Application 
for discharge –  Principles to be considered:
Held: The court must proceed on an assumption that the material 
brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the said material 
to determine whether the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients 
necessary of the off ence alleged – It is necessary to determine whether a 
case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and 
it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by 
examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge 
is fi led – At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence 
placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds 
are suffi  cient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet 
material – Nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating 
agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that 
there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a 
charge would suffi  ce and such material would be taken into account for 
of framing the charge – If there is no suffi  cient ground for proceeding 
against the accused necessarily, he would be discharged – Furthermore, 
the defence of the accused is not to be looked into – Submission of the 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
848
accused is to be confi ned to the material produced by the investigating 
agency. [Para 10, 7]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 227 – Right of the accused 
to fi le any material or document at the stage of framing of charge:
Held: At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance 
the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to 
examine the same – No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused 
to fi le any material or document at the stage of framing of charge – Trial 
court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine 
whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis 
of charge-sheet material only – If the accused is able to demonstrate from 
the charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might 
drastically aff ect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest 
that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at 
that stage – Main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making 
submissions as envisaged u/s. 227 is to assist the court to determine whether 
it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. [Para 8, 9]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Power and jurisdiction 
of higher court under – Exercise of:
Held: The Court is vested with the power to call for and examine 
records of an inferior court for satisfying itself as to the legality and 
regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case – Object is to set right 
a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has 
crept in such proceedings. [Para 13]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 – Application 
for discharge – Filing of, by the accused on the ground that the 
investigating offi  cer failed to consider the written explanation off ered 
by him with supporting documents, that the conclusion reached by the 
sanctioning authority that the accused possessed assets disproportionate 
to his known source of income is erroneous and that the charge-sheet 
material do not reveal any circumstances or evidence to arrive at the 
said conclusion – Rejected by the trial court, however, the High Court 
allowed application fi led u/s. 397/401 – Interference with:
849
Held: High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order 
passed by the trial court – Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court 
and start appreciating the evidence by fi nding out inconsistency which is 
not legally permissible – High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that 
trial court wa

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