Summary
The CBI appealed against a High Court order affirming the discharge, under Section 239 CrPC, of eleven accused in a case alleging a conspiracy by a Cotton Corporation of India purchase officer, his son and others to sell hoarded cotton to the CCI at minimum support price through benami farmers, causing a loss of about Rs 21.19 crore. The Court set aside the discharge because the special court and the High Court had relied on correspondence between the CBI and the CCI summoned at the instance of the accused, which is impermissible at the charge-framing stage; the special court must decide the discharge applications afresh on the chargesheet and the Section 173 documents alone.
Issues
- Whether, at the stage of considering discharge under Section 239 CrPC, the special court could look at or rely upon documents summoned at the instance of the accused (the CBI's letter to the CCI and the CCI's reply stating that no loss was caused).
- What the limits of the magistrate's discretion under Sections 227 and 239 CrPC are, and whether the discharge orders here conformed to them.
- Whether the High Court in revision was justified in affirming discharge orders founded on material brought on record by the defence.
Provisions considered
- Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The section requires the magistrate, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and after hearing both sides, to discharge the accused if the charge is groundless, recording reasons. The Court held that this confines the examination to the final report and its accompanying documents; discharge ordered on the strength of documents produced by the accused falls outside the section. (¶¶ 22, 26.1, 26.2, 27)
- Sections 227 and 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on the three-Judge Bench in State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi, the 'record of the case' at the framing stage means the police report and documents filed with it under Section 173; no provision grants the accused a right to file material at that stage, which would otherwise turn charge-framing into a mini-trial. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following State of Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh, the accused cannot invoke Section 91 to summon documents at the time of framing of charge. (¶ 25)
- Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC; Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) PC Act, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988These were the offences charged in the chargesheet alleging conspiracy, cheating and forgery to divert the MSP benefit; the Court did not examine the merits of these allegations, leaving the question of discharge or framing of charge to the special court. (¶¶ 3, 8.4, 20, 28)
Held
- At the stage of framing charge under Sections 227 or 239 CrPC, the accused has no right to file material or documents; hearing the accused means hearing submissions on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and nothing more. A roving inquiry or mini-trial at that stage is impermissible, and the defence of the accused cannot be put forth then. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Only the chargesheet and the accompanying materials are to be considered at the charge-framing stage; inconsistencies in the prosecution material cannot ground discharge without a full trial, and the defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of discharge. (¶¶ 25.1, 25.2, 25.3)
- The power of discharge is salutary: the magistrate is obliged to discharge where, from the chargesheet and appended documents, trial of the charge is worthless, but is equally bound to ensure a triable charge proceeds. The magistrate neither acts as a post office nor conducts a mini-trial; the order of discharge must speak for itself since it is amenable to revision, and deviation from the discretionary limits attracts the revisional court's supervisory jurisdiction. (¶¶ 26, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3)
- Here the discharge was founded entirely on the CBI-CCI correspondence summoned at the instance of the accused, not on any situation contemplated by Section 239; the procedure followed by the special court and confirmed by the High Court was patently illegal and contrary to binding precedent. Consideration of material invited by the defence is a path unavailable to the court at this stage, and the assumption of no loss to the CCI based on the CCI's letter could not displace the prosecution case of wrongful gain through conspiracy and forgery. (¶ 27)
- The Court expressly refrained from examining whether the chargesheet presents a triable charge; the special court is to exercise its Section 239 jurisdiction afresh, uninfluenced by the observations in the judgment, and decide whether discharge is warranted or charges should be framed. (¶¶ 20, 28)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's common order dated 27.12.2021 and the special court's discharge orders set aside; the accused's Criminal MPs for discharge dismissed; special court directed to decide under Section 239 CrPC, uninfluenced by the judgment, whether to discharge the accused or frame charges; pending applications disposed of.