Trial Court Can't Discharge Accused By Conducting "Mini Trial" At Stage Of Framing Charges: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that at the stage of framing charge against an accused, the Court can neither examine the material brought on record in detail nor examine the sufficiency of the material to establish the offence against the accused.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal was hearing a revision petition against order of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) whereby the respondent had been discharged in respect of the allegations levelled against her for the commission of the offences under Sections 120-B, 161 RPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006.

It observed,

"Trial court has critically examined the material brought on record by the Investigating Agency and has returned a finding that there is no evidence against the respondent, as if the trial court was passing the final judgment after the conclusion of the evidence. The trial Court has, no doubt, conducted a mini trial and has erroneously discharged the respondent."

The Revisionist submitted that complainant had categorically stated during investigation that in the presence of the respondent, the bribe money was accepted by the other accused and part of the amount was kept in the drawer of the respondent in her presence. It was thus clear that argued that respondent was involved in demanding and accepting bribe through the other accused and yet the trial Court discharged her, it was contended.

Counsel representing the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was no demand on part of the respondent and that no bribe money was recovered from her, as such, the trial Court had rightly concluded that there is no evidence against the respondent.

The trial Court had after hearing the arguments of the parties on the issue of framing of charge/discharge, discharged the respondent, observing that the prosecution has not placed on record any evidence, direct or indirect, which could disclose the grave suspicion that the accused, at the instance of the respondent, had demanded and accepted bribe for himself as well as the respondent. It had also said that even if it is presumed that the amount was put in the drawer of the respondent with her knowledge, yet it cannot fall within the expression ‘demand’. 

The High Court was of the view that statement of the complainant and the circumstances of acceptance of bribe by the other accused in presence of the respondent and subsequently putting part amount in the drawer of the respondent in her presence clearly establishes the "connivance" of the respondent vis-à-vis demand and acceptance of bribe and raises a "grave suspicion" of the involvement of the respondent in the commission of above-mentioned offences.

It said that the trial court had "critically examined" the material brought on record by the Investigating Agency and has returned a finding that there is no evidence against the respondent, as if the trial court was passing the final judgment after the conclusion of the evidence.

"The trial Court has, no doubt, conducted a mini trial and has erroneously discharged the respondent", the bench underscored while adding, "In the complaint submitted to CBI, on the basis of which FIR was registered, it was specifically mentioned that both the accused were demanding bribe for clearing the MACP case of the complainant. These circumstances were sufficient to frame the charge against the respondent."

In view of above, the court allowed the petition and the impugned order passed by the trial Court was set aside and the trial Court was directed to frame charge against the respondent.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau Vs Hazra Khan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr T. M Shamsi DSGI

Counsel For Respondent: Mr Showkat Ali khan.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment