Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Discharge in Coal Theft Case — Prima Facie Case Made Out for Criminal Conspiracy and Misappropriation. Court holds that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the material on record, and not to conduct a mini-trial.

Criminal revision application challenging the rejection of discharge application in a case of alleged coal theft and corruption.

The applicants sought to set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting their application for discharge and to discharge them from the prosecution.

The applicants were aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting their application for discharge, and therefore filed this revision application.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application (Exh. No.42) filed by the applicants praying for discharge.

Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The applicants argued that the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company did not show any financial loss due to the alleged shortage or theft of coal, and therefore no prima facie case was made out. The non-applicant (CBI) argued that the material on record, including the final report, made out a prima facie case for the offences alleged.

At the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the material on record, and not to conduct a mini-trial. The court cannot sift the evidence or weigh the evidence to decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The material on record, including the final report and documents, made out a prima facie case for the offences alleged, and the mere fact that the balance sheet did not show financial loss did not negate the prima facie case.

The applicants have approached this Court under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application (Exh. No.42) filed by them praying for discharge from the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint dated 20th/21st January, 2012 received from the Vigilance Officer at Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, a surprise check in association with the Survey Team of Wani North Area and Majri Area of Gauri Open Cast Mine-1 of Ballarpur Area was conducted on 3rd December, 2010 and shortage of 8806.7553 tonnes of coal was detected which was 22.466% short than the permissible limit as per the Yellow Book Manual of W.C.L. At the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the material on record, and not to conduct a mini-trial.

The CBI filed a final report before the Special Judge, Chandrapur against the applicants for offences under Sections 120B and 409 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act. The applicants filed an application (Exh. No.42) for discharge, which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present criminal revision application under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401, 227
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(2), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120B, 409