UNION OF INDIA versus PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 06-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 20 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
229 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL & ANR. 
November 6, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1913, S. 227-0rder of discharge by a Special 
Judge, scope and ambit. 
A 
B 
The second respondent, a Land Acquisition Officer, allegedly, by abusing 
his official position, concealed the fact that the land which was the subject c· 
matter of acquisition was reaily Khasmahal land belonging to the Government 
and having made it appear that the first respondent was the undisputed owner 
of the same, aided and abetted him in getting a huge sum of money as com-
pensation. 
The charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, and the prosecu-
tion requested him to frame a charge against the respondents under ss. 5 (2) 
)) 
and 5 ( 1) ( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with s. 120B IPC. The 
Special Judge, Puri went through the charge-sheet, statements made 
by the 
witnesses before the police and other documents, and coming to the conclu-
sion that there was no sufficient ground for framing a charge against the res-
pondents, discharged them under s. 227 Cr.P.C. ,1973. after giving cogent reasons 
for passing the order of discharge. In revision the High Court upheld the 
Special Judge's order of discharge. 
E. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court-
HELD : 
l. The considerations governing the interpretation of s. 227 of 
Cr. P.C. apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings under the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act, &fter the charge-sheet is submitted before the Special Judge. 
At 
the stage of s. 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find 
out whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 
The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold, the nature of the evidence 
recorded by the police, or the documents produced before the court, which ex-
facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to 
frame a charge against him. [23 !E, 233A-B] 
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [197811 SCR· 257; K. P, Raghavan & Anr. 
F 
v. M. H. Abbas and Anr .. AIR 1967 SC 740; Almohan Das & Ors. v. State of 
G 
West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR 520; applied. 
2. What has been acquired is merely the Raiyyati or the lessee's 'interest, and 
a.'il the proprietory interest vests in the Government itself, there is no question 
of either acquiring or claiming compensation for the interest of the Govern~ 
ment. [239B] 
Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattan;i Mistri & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 
H 
298; and The Special Land Acquisition OD!cer, Hosanagar v. K. S. Ramachandra 
Rao & Ors .. AIR 1972 SC 22~4; applied. 
A 
23 0 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 s.c.R. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 194 
of 1977. 
(Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 30-8-76 of the Orissa 
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 88/76). 
B 
Soli !. Sorabjee, Addi. Sol. Gen. and E. C. Agarwala and Girish 
Chandra for the appellant. 
'C 
Gobinda Mukhoty and N. R. Chowdhary for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal is direeted against the judgment dated 
30th August, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa by which the High 
Court ha& upheld the order of the Special Judge, Puri discharging res-
pondents No. 1 and 2. 
The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and centre round 
an alleged conspiracy said to have been entered into bctwe-~n respon-
D 
dents No. 1 arn;! 2 in order to commit offence~ under sections 5(2) 
and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred 
to as the Act) read with section 120-B I.P.C. The main charge against 
the respondents was that between 19-2-1972 to 30-3-1972 the res-
pondents entered into an agreement for the purpose of obtaining pecu-
niaiy advanta~ for respondent No. 1 P. K. Sama! and in pursuance 
E 
of the said conspiracy the second respondent Debi Prasad Jena, who 
was the Land Acquisition Officer aided and abetted the first respon-
dent in getting a huge sum of momy for a land acquired by the Govern-
ment which in fact belonged to the Government itself and respondent 
No. 1 was a lessee thereof. It is averred in the charge-sheet that 
F respondent No. 1 by abusing his official position concealed the fact 
tha! the land which was the subject matter of acquisit:on and was 
situated in Cuttack Cantonment was really Khasmabal land belonging 
to the Government and having made it appear that he wa' the undi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.