Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Smt. Maushami Amarnath Batabyal, who was arraigned as Accused No.2 in Special Case No.47 of 1990 before the Special Judge, Mumbai. The applicant is the wife of Accused No.1, Amarnath Aghornath Batabyal, a public servant at the relevant time. Both were charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charges were framed on 25th September 1991, to which both accused pleaded not guilty. The applicant challenged the order framing charges by way of revision before the Bombay High Court. The primary contention of the applicant was that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act was not obtained, and that the material on record did not disclose a prima facie case against her. The respondent, State of Maharashtra through the Anti Corruption Bureau, opposed the revision. The High Court examined the scope of revision against an order framing charges and held that such revision is not maintainable unless the order is perverse or without jurisdiction. The court further held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies only to public servants and not to private individuals. Since the applicant was a private individual, she could not claim the protection of Section 19. On merits, the court found that there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the applicant for abetment of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The court noted that the Special Judge had applied judicial mind and found a prima facie case. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Framing of Charges - Revision against order framing charges - The High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view if the Special Judge has applied judicial mind and found prima facie case - Held that the revision against framing of charges is not maintainable unless the order is perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 5-7). B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for Prosecution - Requirement of sanction under Section 19 applies only to public servants, not to private individuals who are abettors or co-accused - Held that the applicant, being a private individual, cannot claim protection of Section 19 (Paras 8-10). C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Abetment - Prima facie case against private individual for abetment of corruption - The court found sufficient material on record to frame charges against the applicant for abetment of offences under the Act - Held that the Special Judge correctly framed charges (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge erred in framing charges against the applicant (Accused No.2) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the absence of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act vitiates the proceedings against her.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The order of the Special Judge framing charges against the applicant is upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is not required for private individuals
- only for public servants
- Revision application against framing of charges is not maintainable if charges disclose prima facie case
- Court cannot re-appreciate evidence at the stage of framing of charges.
