Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ashok Suri, was accused no.2 in CBI Special Case No.82 of 2010 pending before the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Mumbai. The case arose from a FIR registered by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB Mumbai on reliable information. The allegations against the applicant and three other accused (Dhananjay Kumar, Rajesh Shah, and Nitin Vyas) were for offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant filed an application for discharge, which was rejected by the Special Judge on 15th June 2013. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the High Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The facts alleged in the police report were that the applicant and accused no.1 were Deputy Directors of Income Tax (Investigation) at the material time. In September 2006, the applicant submitted a proposal for conducting a search at the office premises of M/s. Niru Impex and the residential premises of its partners. The search commenced on 4th October 2006. During the search, one Bhagwanbhai Ramdas Patel, who was working as a manager, was allegedly offered a bribe by accused no.3 and accused no.4 to not disclose certain documents. The applicant was present during the search but there was no evidence that he was part of any conspiracy or abetted the bribe. The court heard arguments from Mr. Shrikant Bhat for the applicant, Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves for CBI, and Mrs. M.R. Tidke for the State. The court examined the chargesheet and the impugned order. The court found that the only material against the applicant was his presence during the search and his subsequent statements, which did not establish any meeting of minds or prior agreement to commit an offence. The court held that the ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC were not made out, and there was no evidence of abetment under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, the court allowed the application, set aside the order dated 15th June 2013, and discharged the applicant from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Standard for framing charge - The court examined whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Held that if the evidence does not disclose the commission of an offence, the accused is entitled to discharge. (Paras 1-3) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 12 - Abetment of offence - The court considered the ingredients of Section 12 and found no evidence that the applicant abetted any public servant in taking a bribe. (Paras 4-6) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Criminal Conspiracy - The court held that mere presence during a search and subsequent statements do not establish a meeting of minds required for conspiracy. (Paras 4-6) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers - The court exercised inherent jurisdiction to quash the order rejecting discharge, as the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, accused no.2, is entitled to be discharged from the case for offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of any evidence showing his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The order dated 15th June 2013 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Mumbai in CBI Special Case No.82 of 2010 is set aside. The applicant is discharged from the said case.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy requires meeting of minds
- Section 120B IPC
- Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
