STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY INS.OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION versus N. SURESH RAJAN & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 06-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD, M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 14 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 135 
STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS.OF POLICE VIGILANCE 
AND ANTI CORRUPTION 
v. 
N.SURESH RAJAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 22-23 of 2014) 
JANUARY 06, 2014. 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD AND M.Y. EQBAL JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s. 239 - Discharge of accused - Accused charged with 
offences punishable u/s 109 IPC ands. 13(2) r/IN s. 13 (1) (e) 
A 
B 
·c 
of Prevention of Corruption Act -
Acquiring of properties 
disproportionate to known sources of income - Held: At the 
stage of consideration of an application for discharge, court 
D 
has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought 
on record by prosecution are true and to evaluate the said 
materials and documents with a view to find out whether the 
facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose 
the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged 
E 
offence -
At this stage, probative value of the materials has 
to be gone into and court is not expected to. go deep into the 
matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction 
- In the instant case,. while passing the orders of discharge, 
court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of finding 
F 
out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding 
against accused, but whether that would warrant a conviction 
-
Orders impugned suffer from grave error and, as such, are 
set aside. 
ss. 227, 239 and 245 -
Discharge of accused -
G 
Explained. 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
135 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
s. 13(2) rlw 13(1) (e) ·-A/legations that State Ministers 
purchased properties in the names of their relatives - Income 
tax paid by persons in whose names properties were acquired 
- Held: While passing the order of discharge, the fact that 
accused other thari two Ministers have been assessed to and 
B paid income tax cannot be relied upon to discharge the 
accused persons particularly in view of the allegation made 
by prosecution that there was no separate income to amass 
such huge properties -
Properly in the name of an income 
tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually 
c belongs to such an assessee - Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 -
S. 239. 
The instant appeals arose out of the orders of 
discharge of the accused of offences punishable u/s 109 
IPC ands. 13(2) read with 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of 
D Corruption Act, 1988 passed u/s 239 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973. In respect of accused-
respondent no. 1 in Crl. A. Nos. 22-23 of 2014, the High 
Court in revision petition set aside the order of the Special 
Judge and discharged the accused; whereas in respect 
E of accused-respondent no. 1 in Crl. A. Nos. 26-38 of 2014, 
the revision petition against the order of the Special 
Judge discharging the accused was dismissed by the 
High Court. The allegations against respondents no. 1 in 
both sets of appeals were that while they were Members 
F of the State Legislative Assemblies and Ministers in the 
State Government, they acquired and possessed in their 
own names and in the names of other accused, namely, 
the.ir relatives, pecuniary resources and properties 
G 
H 
disproportionate to their known sources of income. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The offences punishable under the 
scheme of the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be 
tried by a Special Judge and he may take cognizance of 
STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS.OF POL VIG. AND ANTI CORR.137 
v. N.SURESH RAJAN 
the offence without committal of the accused and the 
A 
Judge trying the accused is required to follow the 
procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 (the Code) for the trial of warrant- cases by the 
Magistrate. The Special Judge holding the trial is deemed 
to be a Court of Session. [para 15] (148-C] 
B 
1.2. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an 
application for discharge, the court has to proceed with 
an assumption that the materials brought on record by 
the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials 
C 
and documents with a view to find out whether the facts 
emerging therefrom takeri at their face value disclose the 
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged 
offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has 
to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep 
0 
into the matter and hold that the materials would not 
warrant a conviction. What needs to be considered is 
whether there is a ground fo

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