S.239 CrPC | Accused Can Be Discharged When Prosecution Materials Even If Unrebutted Don't Indicate Culpability: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that an accused should be discharged when the materials produced at the time of consideration for framing of charge are of such a nature that if remain unrebutted, those would not indicate culpability of the accused whatsoever.While ingeminating the principles of law governing discharge of accused under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that an accused should be discharged when the materials produced at the time of consideration for framing of charge are of such a nature that if remain unrebutted, those would not indicate culpability of the accused whatsoever.
While ingeminating the principles of law governing discharge of accused under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC'), the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –
“If there is no ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, the charges must be considered to be groundless. The ground may be any valid ground including the insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge. When the materials at the time of consideration for framing the charge are of such a nature that if unrebutted, it would make out no case whatsoever, the accused should be discharged.”
Case Background
The petitioners Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, a retired Additional Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department and his wife Soudamini Mishra filed this petition challenging the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in rejecting their discharge petition under Section 239 of CrPC.
The petitioners were charge-sheeted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC on the accusation that the petitioner no.1, being a public servant, had acquired both movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs.30,30,683.84 in his name and in the name of his family members during a given check period.
During that period, he had incurred expenditure of Rs.27,50,730.45. Thus, on both the counts, the amount of total expenditure came to Rs.57,81,414.00. Against this, he had an earned income of Rs.26,12,730.31 from all his known lawful sources during that period. Therefore, he was accused of acquiring disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.31,68,684/- against his known and lawful sources of income of Rs.26,12,730/-.
Contentions of Parties
Senior Advocate Asok Mohanty appearing for the petitioners argued that the assets and expenditure as reflected in the charge-sheet are highly inflated and some salary received by the petitioner no.1 has not been taken into account. He further argued that two sons of the petitioners contributed a substantial amount for the construction of the house, but the same has not been taken into account.
He also alleged that several known sources of income of the petitioners were ignored in a mala fide manner and even the D.A. amount has not been considered properly while submitting the charge-sheet. He emphatically submitted that the Court below rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners in a circuitous manner, which is liable to be set aside.
Standing Counsel Sangram Das, on the other hand, submitted that the contentions of the petitioners that some amounts have been made highly inflated against the assets and expenditure headings so also allegation regarding deliberate omission of some sources of income are required to be adjudicated at the time of trial on the basis of evidence and not at this stage.
Court's Observations
The only question which fell for consideration was whether the petitioners were entitled to be discharged in the given set of facts and circumstances. For deciding the same, the Court examined the provision under Section 239, CrPC which enables a Magistrate to discharge an accused, when he finds the charge against the accused to be groundless, which means without any basis or foundation.
“For arriving at such a conclusion, the Court has to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 of Cr.P.C. The Court can also make examination of the accused, if it is necessary. Opportunity of hearing has to be provided to both the prosecution and the accused at that stage. The truth, veracity and effect of the materials proposed to be adduced by the prosecution during trial are not to be meticulously adjudged.”
It emphasised the object behind the enactment of Section 239 of CrPC, which is to save an accused from unnecessary and prolonged harassment when the allegations are baseless or without foundation and no prima facie case is made out.
The Bench also clarified that an accused may, in exceptional cases, produce materials before the High Court which can be taken into account to decide a petition filed under Section 239 of CrPC, without appreciating evidence to verify if the defence plea can be established by the accused or not.
“At the stage of framing of charge, in rare and exceptional cases, if the accused produces materials before the High Court which is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts and cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution and which are of sterling and impeccable quality or on the basis of admitted documents which would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against him, in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, the High Court even at the stage of section 239 of Cr.P.C. can take into account such materials,” it observed.
The Court placed reliance on a catena of precedents from the Supreme Court discussing the power of Courts to discharge an accused under Section 239 of CrPC. Upon examining the facts against the settled position of law, the Bench held –
“…we are of the view that the learned trial Court has examined the materials on record carefully and since it was satisfied that prima facie case is made out and it cannot be said that the charge against the two petitioners would be groundless, it has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under section 239 of Cr.P.C.”
It said that the veracity of the contentions of the petitioners as to receipt of substantial amount from their sons and mala fide omissions of some other known and lawful sources of income can only be adjudicated at the stage of trial. Therefore, it held, it would be premature to quash the proceedings/discharge the petitioners, especially when sufficient prima facie materials are available to proceed against them.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra & Anr. v. State (Vigilance)
Case No: CRLMP No. 1245 of 2024
Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
