STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE versus K. N. NEHRU ETC.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 21-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 472 
STATE REPRESENTED BY 
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 
v. 
K. N. NEHRU ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 2017) 
JULY21,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ,] 
Code. of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.239 - Discharge of accused - During further investigation 
C - Propriety of - FIR by police against respondent No. I alleging 
that while serving as Minister in the State Government, he acquired 
assets in his name and in the name of his wife (respondent No.2) 
and his son, disproportionate to his known source of income -
During investigation, respondent No.1 stated that he received 
D certain amounts from his son - Police framed charge-sheet u/s. 13 (2) 
r/w. s.13(/)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act against respondent 
No.J and u/s. 109 /PC rlw. s. 13(2) rlw. s.13(/)(c) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act against respondent No.2 - Application u/s. 239 
seeking discharge - Trial Court directed further investigation to 
. ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of the income of son of the 
E respondents - Revision filed by State seeking direction to frame 
charges - The respondents prayed for their discharge - High Court 
directed discharge of the respondents - On appeal, held: . The 
discharge of the respondents before completion of investigation is 
premature - Therefore, unsustainable. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Having regard to the First Information Report, 
the explanation provided by respondent No.1, the charge-sheet 
submitted as well as the indispensability of the scrutiny of the 
sources of income of son of the respondents and his assets, the 
G Courts below had rightly directed further investigation to verify 
the genuineness or otherwise of the source(s) of income of son 
of the respondents and his assets and the bearing thereof, if any, 
on the charge leveled against the respondents. [Para 13] 
[477-D-E] 
H 
472 
STATE REPRESENTED BY D.S.P v. K.N. NEHRU ETC. 
473 
2. In this perspective, the High Court having endorsed A 
the direction for further investigation, ought not to have recorded 
its findings of exoneration of the respondents at this stage. In 
fact, the discharge of the respondents flies in the face of the 
direction for further investigation into the affairs of their son in 
order to verify the lawfulness or otherwise of his source of income 
B 
and his assets. In view of the correlation of the explanation 
provided by respondent No.1 to the imputation of disproportionate 
assets and the probe ordered into the affairs of his son, the 
discharge of the respondents before the completion of the 
investigation is visibly prematured. The finding in particular that 
respondent No.1 had proved that he had received the amount C 
only from his son and that the latter had received remuneration 
for which he had paid TDS under the Income Tax Act and therefore 
the question of disproportionateness of his assets did not arise, 
in the face of the pending investigation, amounts to prejudging 
the charge against the respondents. Discharging the respondents, D 
pending the investigation against their son, at this stage, is 
unsustainable in law as well as on facts. [Para 13] [477-F-H; 478-
A] 
State of MP. v. Sheet/a Sahai and Others (2009) 8 SCC 
617 : [2009] 12 SCR 1048; Randhir Singh Rana v. State 
(Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361: [1996] 10 
Suppl. SCR 880; Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal 
and others (2009) 9 SCC 129 : [2009] 13 SCR 276 -
distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
[2009] 12 SCR 1048 
distinguished 
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 880 
distinguished 
· [2009] 13 SCR 276 
distinguished 
Para 14 
Para 14 
Para 14 
E 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
G 
No. 1222 of 2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2013 of the High 
Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Crl. R. C. (MD) Nos.416 and 561 
of2013. 
H 
474 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Advs., M. Yogesh 
Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Maha Lakshmi, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Vivek K. Tankha, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., D. Kumanan, Satya 
Mitra Garg, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, R. Baskaran, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In impugnment, is the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 
of the Madras High Court , Madurai Bench whereby the assail to the 
. C 
order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the Special Court for Trial of Cases 
under Prevention of Corruption
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.