Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal application filed by Kishore Morumal Bachani, who was accused No.4 in Special Case No.27 of 1986 pending before the Special Judge, Mumbai. The applicant sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was rejected by the Special Judge on 17th June 1992. The applicant challenged this order under Sections 397 and 482 CrPC. The case arose from an investigation into FSI malpractices concerning Plot No.E/332 at Bandra, registered as A.C.B.C.R.No.1 of 1985. The applicant was charged with offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The other accused included government officers from the City Survey Office and the land records department, the applicant's brother (accused No.3) who was a builder, and an architect (accused No.5). The prosecution case was based on statements of 18 witnesses and 245 pages of documents. The court held that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence in detail. The test is whether the material on record, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction. The court found that there was sufficient material to show a prima facie case against the applicant, including his involvement in the conspiracy. The court noted that the applicant's role as a private person did not preclude his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act for conspiracy with public servants. The court dismissed the application, upholding the Special Judge's order and directing the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Standard for Discharge - The court must consider whether the material on record, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction; a mini-trial is not permissible at the stage of framing charges. (Para 5) B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - Prima Facie Case - At the stage of framing charges, the court is only to see whether there is a prima facie case against the accused; strong suspicion is sufficient. (Para 5) C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) - Conspiracy - The applicant, as a private person, can be charged for conspiracy with public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act if there is material showing his involvement. (Para 5) D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420 - Forgery and Cheating - The allegations of tampering with land records and FSI malpractices, if proved, constitute offences under these sections. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, upholding the order of the Special Judge rejecting the discharge application. The court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC requires strong evidence of no case
- not a mini-trial
- Prima facie case sufficient for framing charges
- Sections 120-B
- 465
- 466
- 467
- 468
- 471
- 477-A
- 420 IPC read with Sections 5(1)(d)
- 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947
