STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, TAMIL NADU versus J. DORAISWAMY ETC.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 07-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION,
TAMIL NADU
v.
J. DORAISWAMY ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 445-446 of 2019)
MARCH 07, 2019.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.227 – Respondents-Police officials prosecuted under
Prevention of Corruption Act – Charge sheet filed by the State
Prosecuting Agency against the respondents – Application under
s.227 filed by respondents praying for their discharge from the case
which was allowed by trial court – High Court dismissed the revision
petitions filed by State challenging the order of trial court – Validity
–  Held: While considering the case of discharge, sought immediately
after the charge-sheet is filed, the Court cannot become an Appellate
Court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out
inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses as was done by the
High Court in the impugned order – There is no prima facie case
made out for discharge of the respondents at this stage of the trial
– CJM should have, therefore, allowed the State to adduce the
evidence on merits in support of the charge-sheet to prove the
charges – Matter remitted to CJM to proceed with the trial –
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to CJM
Court, the Court.
HELD: The High Court acted  like an Appellate Court than
as a Revisionary Court as if it was hearing the appeal against the
final verdict of the Special Court. There was no prima facie case
made out for discharge of the respondents at this stage of the
trial. They, therefore, have to stand for trial on merits in the light
of the documents and contents of charge-sheet filed pursuant to
the order of the Court. [Paras 12, 18][923-G; 925-D]
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 921
921
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
922                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 445-446 OF 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2016 of the High Court
Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. Nos. 825 and 826 of 2015.
S. Partha Sarathi, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Neeraj Jain, Sr. Adv., S. Thananjayan, Krishan Kumar, Rahul Raj
Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
dated 14.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Crl. R.C. Nos.825 and 826 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed
the revisions filed by the appellant-State and affirmed the order of the
Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai by which the
respondents herein were discharged under Section 227 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Crl.P.C.”) from
the Criminal Proceedings filed against them in Special Case No.4 of
2014 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as “the PC Act”).
3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the
facts mentioned infra.
4. Respondents (A-1 and A-2) were working as Inspector of Police
and Sub-inspector of Police respectively in the State Tamil Nadu Police
Services. Both the respondents were prosecuted for commission of the
offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1) (d) of the
PC Act in Crime Case No.3 of 2008/Special Case No. 4 of 2014 in the
Court of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.
5. On charge-sheet being filed by the State Prosecuting Agency
against the respondents after obtaining necessary sanction as required
in law, both of them filed applications under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
(Crl.M.P.Nos.648/2014 & 113/2015) before the CJM praying therein
for their discharge from the case.  In substance, the respondents contended
that no prime facie case is made out against them under the PC Act and
in the charge- sheet hence both the respondents are liable to be
discharged.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 29.06.2015,
allowed the applications and discharged them from the case.  The State
felt aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and filed two revisions in the High Court.  By impugned
order, the High Court dismissed the revisions and affirmed the order of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, giving rise to filing of these appeals by the
State by way of special leave in this Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.