Framing Of Charges | Investigation Into Offence & Elaborate Appreciation Of Evidence Discouraged, Only Prima Facie Material Significant: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required and is rather discouraged at the stage of framing of charges and that only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that as per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of...
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required and is rather discouraged at the stage of framing of charges and that only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that as per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the Judge shall consider whether sufficient grounds exist or not and that such consideration shall be supported by material on record.
"The Judge need not be satisfied on the question of whether the trial, when conducted, will lead to the conviction or acquittal of the accused, but the consideration needs to be whether the accused is to be sent for trial at the first instance or not, based on the material on record. An investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at the stage of framing of charges and only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a Revision Petition seeking setting aside of Order dated 23rd October, 2018 passed by Special CBI Judge qua the discharge of the respondents of offences under sec. 120B read with sec. 419, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC read with sec. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A division bench of the High Court had directed the CBI for investigation into allotment of over 90 societies, including Om Cooperative Group Housing Society, with direction to investigate on the aspect of unholy alliance and connivance between builder mafia and the officers working in the Office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, DDA and the Societies and fraudulent revival of defunct societies.
A preliminary inquiry was registered to enquire the matter which revealed that official of Registrar of Cooperative Societies had abused their official position as public servants in conspiracy with private persons by accepting fake and fabricated documents to have land allotted to the Om CGHS at a lower price than the prevailing market price.
Subsequently, CBI filed a chargesheet against 17 accused, in the case against Om CGHS, including the present respondents. On 23rd October, 2018 the Special Judge framed charges whereby, the respondents were discharged. Accordingly, CBI had filed the present petition against the said order.
The Court noted that although the respondents were not members of the Society, they played a vital role in obtaining the funds based on which the DDA allotment was concluded, which was the second phase of the conspiracy.
It said that without an arrangement of funds from members as well as non-members, the Society would not have been able to secure the land allotment from DDA.
"It is also an admitted fact that the said funds were arranged by the respondents at the instance of Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva and Mr. Sushil Chhabra, who were the members of the society actively involved in the conspiracy. The association of the respondents with the other accused was during the period when the said conspiracy was being steered. Therefore, appreciating the evidence on its face value, it can be reasonably said that there was a meeting of mind between the respondents and other accused, since, from March 2003 till September 2003 they were in correspondence with each other for fulfilling the objective of their criminal conspiracy," the Court observed.
The Court therefore concluded that there were adequate material available before the Court of the Special Judge for forming the opinion that sufficient grounds existed for presuming that the respondents had committed an offence and that prima facie a case was made out against the respondents, which it failed to appreciate while passing the Order dated 23rd October, 2018.
The Court found that the learned Special Judge erred while passing the impugned Order to the extent of discharging the respondents despite having prima facie evidence against them on record.
"Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 23rd October, 2018, passed by Special Judge, CBI-01, PC Act, North West, Rohini, Delhi in CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar etc., CBI No. 122/2016, is set aside with respect to the observations made qua the present respondents discharging them. The instant matter is remanded back to the learned Special Judge, CBI-01, PC Act, North West, Rohini, Delhi with directions to pass a fresh Order qua the respondents, in accordance with the observations made hereinabove, the material on record before it as well as in accordance with law," the Court said.
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275