Accused Has No Right To Produce Any Material At The Time Of Framing Of Charge: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the accused does not have the right to produce any material or documents to contest the case. The Court further emphasized that at the charges stage, the trial court should base its decision solely on the chargesheet material provided by the prosecution, presuming the material to be true for the purpose of determining the existence of...
The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the accused does not have the right to produce any material or documents to contest the case. The Court further emphasized that at the charges stage, the trial court should base its decision solely on the chargesheet material provided by the prosecution, presuming the material to be true for the purpose of determining the existence of a prima facie case.
The Court observed “At the time of framing of charge and taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made by the prosecution for trial on the basis of chargesheet material only. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering the application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material that has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine the facts emerging from the material taken no its face disclose the existence of ingredients necessary of the offense alleged.”
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal against the Gujarat HC judgment which had quashed the trial court's order rejecting the respondent's application seeking discharge under section 227 CrPC. The respondent was facing charges under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case in question involved a prosecution claim that the respondent, a former Sub Inspector of police, had, during the period from 2005 to 2011, acquired assets valued at 1 crore 15 lakhs in his and his wife's name through misuse of power and corrupt practices. These acquisitions were alleged to be disproportionate to his known sources of income, exceeding 40% of his legitimate earnings.
In response to the charges, the accused had filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), read with Section 228 of CrPC. The trial court, applying established legal principles, dismissed the application on April 13, 2016.
It is pertinent to note that section 227, CrPC states that -
Section 227. Discharge-If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
The trial court had observed, “ the bulk of record placed on record with the charge sheet prima facie shows that all the ingredients of disproportionate income is proved; - even if two views are possible, the suspicion is against the accused with regard to the loan account and other income from Australia and agricultural income; - at this stage, the Court is not required to make into a roving inquiry and weighing evidence as if trial is concluded”.
Subsequently, the respondent went to the HC which quashed and set aside the order of the trial court. The Gujarat HC observed, “If the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of persons from whose account, promissory note has been received by the petitioner, then there would be no evidence to consider that the amount available with the petitioner within the cheque period is disproportionate to his source of income and, therefore, revision petition needs to be allowed.”
The HC relied on the State of MP v. SB Johari AIR 2000 SC 665 which held that “Only prima facie case is to be looked into. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, it cannot show that the accused committed that particular offence.”
Aggrieved by this, the state preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court clarified that the primary consideration during the framing of charges is to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case. At this stage, the probative value of the evidence on record need not be thoroughly examined.
The Court also stressed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 of CrPC allows it to examine the records of an inferior court to ensure the legality and regularity of proceedings or orders. This power is aimed at rectifying patent defects, errors in jurisdiction or law, or instances of perversity in the lower court's proceedings.
It observed “Hence, raising reasonable suspicion cannot be held at the primary stage for discharging the accused. Hence the impugned judgment of 11.1.2018 set aside the order of trial court is required to be set aside and is set aside and allow the appeal.
The trial court shall proceed with the trial having regard to the fact that the chargesheet has been filed in 2015 and shall conclude the trial within 1 year.”
Case title: State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874