Summary
An officer of the Bihar State Financial Corporation was charged under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act with assets disproportionate to his income over 1974–1988. The FIR was filed in 2000 and the charge sheet in 2007. The charge sheet put his income at Rs. 3,01,561 and his expenditure at Rs. 5,24,386. The Special Judge and the High Court refused discharge, saying his objections required a roving inquiry. The Supreme Court discharged him. At the Section 227 stage, the judge must sift the record for basic infirmities. The charge sheet counted a Rs. 55,000 bank balance where the passbook showed Rs. 11,998, double-counted loan repayments already deducted from salary, and included articles seized in 2000 with nothing linking them to the check period. Corrected, expenditure fell to Rs. 2,69,355, below income, so no prima facie case existed.
Issues
- Whether the trial court, on a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, could decline to examine glaring errors in the prosecution's own disproportionate-assets computation as requiring a 'roving inquiry'
- Whether, on the charge sheet's own figures properly read, a prima facie case of disproportionate assets was made out
Provisions considered
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The judge must consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the material and any basic infirmities, sifting the prosecution's material without acting as a post office. Examining obvious computational errors on the record is not a roving inquiry. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 18)
- Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988After correcting three heads of expenditure in the charge sheet, the expenditure was less than the known income for the check period, so no prima facie case of disproportionate assets existed. (¶¶ 4, 5, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 17)
Held
- Under Section 227, the judge may sift and weigh the evidence to see whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists. The judge cannot accept everything the prosecution says as gospel truth, though a mini-trial is not permitted (Prafulla Kumar Samal, Sajjan Kumar, Dipakbhai Patel). A strong suspicion must be founded on material capable of being translated into evidence. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Three items were wrongly included as expenditure. A bank balance of Rs. 55,000 was counted where the passbook before the court showed Rs. 11,998. Loan repayments of Rs. 53,467 had already been deducted from the salary taken as income. Articles valued at Rs. 1,58,562, seized twelve years after the check period, were not linked to it. Excluding them, expenditure of Rs. 2,69,355 against income of Rs. 3,01,561 disclosed no prima facie case. (¶¶ 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 17)
- This was a simple and necessary inquiry on the same record that was before the Special Judge, not a roving inquiry, and both courts below erred in refusing it. The delays at every stage, with the appellant now 72 years old, also made continued prosecution unjust. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed. The orders refusing discharge were set aside and the appellant discharged; no order as to costs.