STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR versus SUDERSHAN CHAKKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 10-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
v. 
SUDERSHAN CHAKKAR AND ANR. 
MAY 10, 1995 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860/Prevention of Comtption Act, 1988: Sections 
120-B, 467, 499/5(2)--Criminal conspiracy and misappropriation-Trial Court 
discharging some of the accused-Negligence but not criminal conspiracy at-
C tributed to them-Omission on their part to do their mandatory duties for 
months together-Not to be taken in isolation---Overal/ view to be taken-Trial 
Court's order set aside and matter remitted back to it. 
The respondents were tried for criminal conspiracy and misap-
propriation of foodgrains and empty bags of the Food and Supplies 
D Department worth Rs. 3,22,119.36 after forging official documents. The 
trial Court held that a prima facie case was made out only against three 
and discharged the other two, against which the State filed a revision which 
was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The question whether the respondents omitted to do their 
mandatory duties for months together designedly or negligently can be 
inferred only on an over all view of all the material collected during 
investigation and not in isolation as has been done in the instant case by 
F the Courts below. That apart, in a case instituted upon a Police Report, 
the Court is required, at the time of framing of the charges, to confine its 
attention to the documents referred to under section 173 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure only. In that context, the Court is not justified in 
referring to, much less, relying upon the letters purportedly written by the 
G accused when their authenticity and veracity are yet to be gone into. 
(296-D-E] 
2. The impugned orders are set aside. The Trial Judge shall proceed 
with the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the 
observations now made. By way of abundant caution it is made clear that 
H in dealing with the matter the Trial Judge shall not allow himself to be 
294 
STATEOFJ.ANDK. v. SUDERSHANCHAKKAR 
295 
influenced by anything said in this order in regard to the merits of the A 
case. (296-F) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
649 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.94 of the Jammu and B 
Kashmir High Court in Crl.R.No. 66 of 1993. 
Ashok Mathur for the Appellant. 
R. Sasiprabhu for the Respondents. 
c 
The following Order of the C<'urt was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Special leave granted. 
D 
On a First Information Report lodged by the Director, Food & 
Supplies, Jammu, a case under sections 120-B, 467 and 409 !PC and section 
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the two 
respondents herein, who at the material time were the Tehsil Supply 
Officers of Ramban, one Nijamuddin, a Store Keeper, and two transport E 
contractors, the allegation being that all of them hatched a criminal con-
spiracy and pursuant thereto misappropriated foodgrains and empty bags 
of the Food and Supplies Department worth Rs. 3,22,119.36 after forging 
official documents. The Police Vigilance Organisation took up investigation 
of the case and submitted a chargesheet, whereupon the Special Judge, 
Anti Corruption, Jammu took cognizance. Thereafter he heard the parties F 
on the question of framing of charges and held that a prima facie case was 
made out only against the other three arraigned but not against the two 
respondents. Accordingly he discharged them by his order dated June 28, 
1993. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a revisional application in the 
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. G 
On perusal of the record we find that one of the circumstances on 
which the prosecution sought to rely to prove its case against the two 
respondents was that they did not perform their mandatory duties of 
monthly inspection of the stores of the Food & Supplies Department and 
checking of the daily remittances of the sale proceeds to the Treasury. H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A According to the prosecution this omission on the part of the respondents 
for months together along with other materials collected during investiga-
tion clearly indicated that it was deliberate and that the involvement of the 
two respondents in the offences alleged against them, particularly the 
offence of criminal conspiracy stood established. In dealing with the above 
B circumstance the learned Courts

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