Final Test Of Guilt Is Not To Be Applied At The Stage Of Framing Charges: Reiterates Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]

While disposing of a revision petition, seeking discharge, Justice Rajeev Singh said,

"the law is very well settled that while considering the application for discharge or at the time of framing of charge, the Court is only required to weigh the material and evidence on record to find out whether, prima facie, case is made out against the accused, which raises strong suspicion against him to have committed the offence and, if it is found that the ingredients of the commission of the offence are available on the basis of record, the Court will proceed to frame the charge."

The revision had been preferred by one Om Prakash Kapoor for quashing the order of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, by which his discharge application was rejected.

He had been accused of conspiring with the Directors of M/s. Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. and for approving disbursement of 6 instances of Packing Credits (PC), during his posting as Senior Manager at the Bank of Baroda. It was alleged that the approval for 3 of those PCs were granted without obtaining credit report and 3 other PCs were approved in spite of poor credit reports.

Kapoor resisted these charges on the ground that no allegation had been made against him in the FIR and that CBI had wrongly indicted him on the ground of committing negligence in discharging the duty. It was further contended that there was no evidence against him in relation to the alleged offences and that the investigating agency could not show dishonest intention on his part. Reliance was placed on C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI), (2013) 1 SCC 205.

Declining the arguments advanced by the revisionist, the court said,

"at the stage of discharge, the court is required only to go into the probative value of the material and, it is not expected to go into deep the matter to hold that the material should not warrant conviction. What is required at the stage of discharge is that if, the court finds that, prima facie, the offence has been committed, it can frame charge." Reliance was placed on Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709.

Where it appears to the Court, Justice Singh continued, and where in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge.

"The Court is not concerned with the proof, but only with strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence," he remarked while referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460.

The court lastly reiterated the words of the Supreme Court as contained in Asim Sharif v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 149:

"while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge."

Accordingly, the court directed,

"Considering the facts of the present case and on the anvil of law as has emerged, it cannot be said that there is not enough material for a prima facie case which raises strong suspicion against the revisionist to have committed the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, the present revision is hereby dismissed."

Case Details:

Case Title: Om Prakash Kapoor v. State Through CBI, Bs&Fc, New Delhi

Case No.: Crl. R. No. 1432/2019

Quorum: Justice Rajeev Singh

Appearance: Advocate Shreesh Chandra (for Revisionist)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment