STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE versus R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 05-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT Of POLICE
v.
R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1452-1453 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND J. B. PARDIWALA. JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.239, 397, 401 –
Discharge of accused – Respondent No.1 was serving as Motor
Vehicle Inspector during the check period – Respondent No. 2 is
his wife who is a commerce graduate and is claiming to have a
separate source of income and paying the income tax from 1990
onwards – FIR registered against Respondent No.1 for offences u/
s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act r/w s.109 IPC – During investigation,
role of his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 surfaced as an abettor –
Charge sheet filed in the Court of the Special Judge – Respondents
filed petition u/s.239 for discharge – Special Judge rejected the
petition and held that there was a prima facie case against the
accused persons to put them to trial for alleged offence and charges
levelled against them cannot be said to be groundless so as to
discharge them from prosecution – Respondents filed revision
applications before High Court – High Court discharged the
respondents – On appeal, held: s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act makes a
departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients
of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove
the charge framed against him – legal effect of s.13(1)(e) is that it
is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession
of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but
the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known
to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and
within the knowledge of the accused – It is for the accused to
account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands – The onus
in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation –
accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at
the stage of s.239 – The circumstances emerging from the record of
the case indicate the involvement of the accused persons in the
alleged offence – It cannot be said that the charge against the
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 630
630
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
accused persons was groundless – Special Court directed to frame
charges against the accused persons and put them to trial – Penal
Code,1860 – s.109 - Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e).
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Known sources of income
– Defined – It refers to the sources known to the prosecution and
not to the accused.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The onus or burden is
on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets
found to be possessed by the public servant.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Whether the investigating
officer before filing FIR should consider explanation offered by
the accused – Held: The accused public servant does not have a
right to be afforded a chance to explain the alleged disproportionate
assets to the investigating officer before the filing of a chargesheet,
a similar right cannot be granted to the accused before the filing of
an FIR by making a preliminary inquiry mandatory.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Stage of charge framing
– Approach of Court – Court has to form a presumptive opinion as
to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence
alleged – Court is not required to go deep into the probative value
of the materials on record.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.239 – Prima facie case
u/s.239 – If the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused
to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused – The word
‘groundless’ means that there must be no ground for presuming that
the accused has committed the offence and that the materials placed
before the Court do not make out or are not sufficient to make out
a prima facie case against the accused – If no prima facie case
regarding the commission of any offence is made out, it would
amount to a charge being groundless.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Revisional powers of High
Court – Ambit and scope of – Held: Revisional power can only be
exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would
occasion injustice, if it is not corrected – The revisional power cannot
be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner – Revisional power
cannot be equated with appellate power – A r

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