Summary
The CBI challenged quashing of proceedings alleging unlawful receipt of foreign contributions by an MLA. The High Court had treated the accused’s claim that the money was his Indian father’s gift as admitted. The Supreme Court held that this disputed defence required trial evidence. It separately set aside an adverse revisional order made without notice and remitted that revision for hearing.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could resolve the disputed source-of-funds defence under section 482 CrPC.
- What remedy followed from the revisional court’s failure to hear the accused.
Held
- The High Court exceeded inherent jurisdiction by minutely assessing allegations and defence and deciding disputed facts. Whether the foreign entities remitted the father’s funds as gifts was contested, rather than admitted, and required examination of evidence at trial. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The accused’s asserted paternal-gift defence was for him to establish. Findings on the applicability of the 1976 foreign-contribution legislation also remained for trial; the Court did not determine guilt or finally accept the defence. (¶¶ 23, 26)
- An adverse revisional order made without notice could be set aside and remitted for a hearing. That procedural defect did not justify the High Court’s wholesale quashing of the prosecution on disputed merits. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
Result
The CBI appeal was allowed and the High Court’s common order set aside. Trial could resume according to law without being influenced by either court’s observations. The revision order of 20 August 2011 was separately quashed and remitted for fresh consideration after notice; the respondent was to appear within four weeks without awaiting formal notice.