STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus J. JAYALALITHA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 09-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
11. 
J. JAY ALALITHA 
MAY 9, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 227,239 and 245-
Discharge-Accused allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy to import 
coal causing huge losses to the Stat<r-lmport was made inspite of strong C 
objections by fhe bureaucracy, Central Government and other high officials-
Special Judge discharged accused as material on record was found insufficient 
to frame a charge-High Court upheld order of discharge-On appeal, Held, 
it cannot be decided at this premature stage that accused was unaware of 
the serious implications, which were brought to her notice-Exercise at this D 
stage should be confined to considering the police report and documents in 
order to ascertain whether the allegations are groundless or whether a 
rebuttable presumption of guilt can be raised-Order of discharge set aside 
and trial to continue-Penal Code, 1860----Section 120-B and section 409-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988--Section 13(2). 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872--Section IO-Relevancy of fact-Court should have 
material to believe participation of accused in conspiracy and only then 
whatever was said, done or written by the accused would be relevant-
Relevant material to be considered to decide whether there is a reasonable 
ground to believe participation of accused in the conspiracy even at the 
stage of framing charges. 
F 
Respondent, a former Chief Minister, along with 10 others, was accpsed 
of entering into a criminal conspiracy to import coal in order to obtain 
personal pecuniary advantages, causing huge losses to the State. The 
Government Secretary (PWD) had raised strong objections against the G 
acceptance of tender regarding the said import but they could not reach the 
respondent as the relevant pages were removed from the file. The Union 
Minister for Coal and many other high officials also discouraged this import 
as it was neither urgent nor qualitative but inspite of all these, the deal was 
made. 
23 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Special Judge discharged the respondent, as the materials shown on 
record were insufficient to fram4~ a charge. High Court in revision did not 
interfere with the order. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that the materials and circumstances were 
_, 
B 
sufficient to bring home the guilt of the respondent, that such a conspiracy 
could not have been hatched without the direct, active and positive involvement 
of the respondent; that the Government Secretary, Union Coal Minister and 
many other high officials had expressed their displeasure inspite of which 
the deal was made; and that it was an impossibility that such material could 
have escaped Iner attention. 
c 
Respondent contended that there was nothing on record to connect h~r 
with the conspiracy; that the sheets containing adverse remarks were absent 
from the file and she was herself in dark; and that action was taken on the 
proposals and recommendations submitted by departmental heads and high 
officials in the bureaucracy. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The question of using anything said, done on written by any 
F
one of such conspirators arise only if the facts would help to sustain the first 
limb of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1872 i.e. there is reasonable ground 
E to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an' 
offence. Unless the court has some materials to believe that the respondent is, 
one of those persons referred to in the first limb of the section, any 
consideration for what was said, done or written would not be relevant fact as 
against each of the conspirators. It is open to the court, even at this stage, to 
F 
consider the materials relating to what was said, done or written with 
reference to the common intention b1!tween the accused for the purpose of 
· deciding whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the said accused 
would have been one oftbe conspiratoirs. (30-D-E) 
State v. Na/ini, (1999) 5 SCC 253, relied on 
G 
2. It is pertinent to point out that all the materials were included in the 
file which was submitted to the respondent. There is no case for the respondent 
.. 
that they were not in that file when she scrutinised it nor is it anybody's case 
that those warnings were included only in the missing sheets. If she came to 
know of these prompt warnings and despite them accorded her green signal 
H to import the co

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