Summary
A Motor Vehicle Inspector and his wife were charge-sheeted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC for disproportionate assets. The Special Judge refused discharge under Section 239 CrPC. In revision, the High Court discharged both accused, holding that the investigating officer had ignored the husband's explanation and that the wife's income-tax returns showed lawful income. The Supreme Court set this aside. An accused has no right to have an explanation considered before the charge-sheet, and income-tax returns are not conclusive proof of lawful income. The accused's burden to account satisfactorily cannot be discharged at the Section 239 stage, and the High Court had effectively run a mini-trial.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could discharge accused charged with possessing disproportionate assets because the investigating officer did not consider the public servant's explanation
- Whether income-tax returns and other defence material showing the wife's separate income could be weighed on a preponderance of probability at the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC
- Scope of discharge under Section 239 CrPC and of revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(e) and Explanation, with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988'Known sources of income' means sources known to the prosecution. The separate burden on the accused to account satisfactorily for assets is for trial, not discharge. (¶¶ 34, 36, 41, 42, 80)
- Sections 239 and 240, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A charge is groundless only if the prosecution material, even if unrebutted, makes out no case. Strong suspicion founded on that material justifies framing a charge. (¶¶ 59, 61, 69, 72, 74)
- Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Revision is confined to manifest errors of law or procedure. It does not allow re-appreciation of evidence against an order refusing discharge. (¶¶ 47, 75, 76, 77)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The sources of income claimed by the accused are within the accused's special knowledge, so the burden of explaining them rests on the accused. (¶¶ 40, 41)
Held
- Under Section 13(1)(e), the prosecution must show possession of assets disproportionate to the sources of income known to it. The Explanation limits these to lawful income intimated as required, so no open-ended inquiry is needed. The accused must then account satisfactorily for the assets, on a preponderance of probability, and this burden is distinct from the prosecution's. (¶¶ 36, 40, 41, 42, 80)
- Following K. Veeraswami and T.H. Vijayalakshmi, the investigating officer is not obliged to hear and decide the public servant's explanation before filing the charge-sheet. The failure to consider the husband's explanation, or to seek one from his wife, was no ground for discharge. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)
- Income-tax returns and assessments do not establish that a source of income is lawful. Their value is for trial, and they cannot found a discharge where the lawfulness of the source is itself disputed. (¶ 46)
- At the Section 239 stage the court assumes the prosecution material to be true and asks only whether there is ground to presume the offence. It does not weigh defences or decide sufficiency, and an accused cannot discharge the Section 13(1)(e) burden at that stage. (¶¶ 54, 59, 61, 69, 72, 73, 79, 80)
- The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. Acting virtually as a chartered accountant, it compared the defence material with the investigation figures and accepted the accused's explanation. The material disclosed a prima facie case and triable issues, so the charge was not groundless. (¶¶ 76, 77, 78, 79, 81)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's orders discharging both accused were set aside and the Special Court was directed to frame charges and proceed to trial; observations are not a finding on guilt or innocence.