Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal revision petitions filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by accused persons in a case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioners challenged a common order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, in Special C.C. No.10 of 2012, whereby the trial court decided to frame charges against them. The petitioners had filed applications under Section 227 Cr.P.C. (for discharge in warrant cases instituted on police report) and Section 239 Cr.P.C. (for discharge in summons cases) seeking discharge, which were rejected. The High Court heard both petitions together. The main contention of the petitioners was that there was no prima facie case against them and that the sanction for prosecution was invalid. The respondent-CBI opposed the petitions, arguing that the material on record was sufficient to frame charges. The court analyzed the scope of Sections 227 and 239 Cr.P.C., noting that at the stage of framing charge, the court is required to consider whether there is strong suspicion or prima facie case against the accused, and a detailed evaluation of evidence is not permissible. The court also held that the validity of sanction is a matter for trial and cannot be examined at the charge stage. The revisional court's power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to correcting patent errors or illegality, and it cannot re-appreciate evidence. The court found that the trial court's order was based on the material on record and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Charge Framing - Discharge - Sections 227, 239, 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - The court considered whether the trial court's order framing charges was sustainable when the petitioners sought discharge on the ground of insufficient material. Held that at the stage of framing charge, the court is only to see whether there is a strong suspicion or prima facie case against the accused; detailed appreciation of evidence is not required. The revisional court cannot interfere unless the order is perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-20) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - The petitioners argued that the sanction order was invalid. The court noted that the validity of sanction is a matter for trial and cannot be gone into at the charge stage. (Paras 15-18) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope - Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. - The revisional court's power is limited to correcting patent errors or illegality; it cannot act as an appellate court. The trial court's order was based on material on record and did not warrant interference. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the petitioners were entitled to discharge under Sections 227 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
Both criminal revision petitions were dismissed. The order of the trial court framing charges was upheld, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. is not warranted if there is strong suspicion
- prima facie case is sufficient for framing charge
- revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence at charge stage
