Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dr. Vidyasagar Garg, was accused No. 6 in Special CBI Case No. 1 of 2014 arising out of FIR No. RC 219 2012(E) 0006 registered on 03.07.2012. The CBI alleged that officials of the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Nagpur, in connivance with directors and officials of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Limited, committed forgery and cheating to obtain mining leases for four areas by submitting false prospecting reports without actual prospecting. The Government of Chhattisgarh had rejected the mining lease applications on 31.01.2007 on the ground that the statutory prospecting reports were not genuine. The applicant, a retired employee of IBM, was charged under Sections 120-B, 420, 511, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He filed an application at Exh. 154 for discharge before the Special Judge, CBI, Nagpur, which was rejected on 04.01.2020. Aggrieved, he filed the present revision application. The High Court examined the material on record, including the chargesheet and documents, and found no prima facie evidence linking the applicant to the alleged conspiracy or dishonest intention. The court noted that the applicant had retired before the alleged acts and there was no material to show his involvement in the preparation of false reports or any agreement to commit the offences. The court held that mere suspicion or association with the IBM was insufficient to frame charges. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the applicant was discharged from all offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge - Standard of Proof - The court must consider whether a strong suspicion exists against the accused based on the material on record; if not, discharge is warranted. (Paras 5-10) B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 - Conspiracy and Cheating - Requirement of Mens Rea - For offences of conspiracy and cheating, there must be evidence of dishonest intention and agreement to commit an illegal act; mere suspicion is insufficient. (Paras 11-15) C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Criminal Misconduct - Requirement of Abuse of Position - To attract criminal misconduct, there must be evidence that the accused abused his official position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; absence of such evidence warrants discharge. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the discharge application of the applicant/accused No. 6 in the absence of any prima facie material to proceed against him for the alleged offences.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court of C.B.I., Nagpur, is set aside. The applicant/accused No. 6 is discharged from all offences in Special CBI Case No. 1 of 2014.
Law Points
- Discharge
- Prima facie case
- Conspiracy
- Cheating
- Forgery
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
