Summary
The Court upheld discharge of a private financier from a disproportionate-assets conspiracy prosecution. Custody of a company’s sale deed and attestation by his employee did not, without links to the purchase funds or an unlawful agreement, establish a prima facie case of conspiracy or abetment. The approvers’ material and recorded testimony supplied no incriminating link. Allegations in a separate bribery prosecution could not fill that gap where the present charge sheet had not adopted them. Mere suspicion did not require a trial against him.
Issues
- Whether custody of the sale deed and the employee’s attestation disclosed a prima facie conspiracy or abetment case.
- Whether allegations in a separate prosecution could supply missing ingredients in the present charge sheet.
Provisions considered
- Sections 227 and 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The court could sift prosecution material for a prima facie case without conducting a trial; mere suspicion short of the requisite ground did not compel framing charges. (¶¶ 5, 21, 29-32)
- Sections 107, 109, 120A and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The material did not disclose intentional assistance or an unlawful agreement connecting the respondent to acquisition of the disputed property. (¶¶ 22-25, 29-32)
Held
- At charge framing, the court must apply its judicial mind and assess whether prosecution material discloses the offence, without meticulous trial-stage evaluation. Strong or grave suspicion may justify a charge, but the judge is not a mere conduit for unsupported allegations. (¶ 21)
- The respondent was not the property owner, had no shown link to the purchasing company or purchase funds, and was not alleged to have received a benefit. Holding the sale deed and having an employee witness it did not establish an agreement to acquire disproportionate assets or intentional assistance in doing so on this record. (¶¶ 23-26, 29, 32)
- The approvers’ statements and the testimony recorded during the proceedings did not supply the missing connection. The money trail described by the prosecution implicated other participants but not the respondent. (¶¶ 25-26, 32)
- The earlier bribery case was separate. Its allegations had not been incorporated as the basis of the present charge sheet and could not be used to repair the absence of a prima facie case in this disproportionate-assets prosecution. No finding disposing of the separate case was made. (¶ 27-28)
- The respondent’s private status precluded treating him as the public servant committing the substantive misconduct offence; the conspiracy and abetment case nevertheless required independent examination. Discharge was sustained because the necessary supporting material was absent, not because private persons could never abet a public servant. (¶¶ 23-24, 29-32)
Result
CBI’s appeal dismissed without costs after condoning filing delay; High Court’s discharge of the respondent from the present prosecution maintained.