Judge Not Post Office Of Prosecution, Must Apply Judicial Mind To Determine If Case For Trial Is Made : Supreme Court

While quashing two orders passed by the Special Judge, CBI in a corruption case against the appellant Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd, the Supreme Court on August 23 held that the CBI judge failed to apply his mind to determine whether a case for trial was made out by the prosecution at the discharge stage under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The Court said that under Section 227 CrPC, a Judge is required to sift the evidence to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. It added that “exercise would include taking a prima facie view on the nature of the evidence recorded by the CBI and the documents placed before the Court so as to frame any charge.”

The Court however pointed out that one must be mindful of the language used in Section 227 CrPC, which reads: “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 on 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.”

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah pointed out that the expression “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” means that the “Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution. The judge must exercise the judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.”

The Court referred to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979), Niranjan Singh Karam Singh v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya And Others (1990) and State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and Others (2014) in this regard.

Interestingly, these cases were referred to by the respondent- the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to argue that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court cannot appraise the evidence as it is done at the time of trial. The CBI submitted that the Court must proceed on an assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true.

However, the Court did not agree with this argument. It referred to Prafulla Kumar Samal's judgment, in this regard which stated:

“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (as highlighted by the Court)”.

In Niranjan Singh, the Court said: “5. Section 227, introduced for the first time in the new Code, confers a special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if 'upon consideration' of the record and documents he considers 'that there is not sufficient ground' for proceeding against the accused. In other words his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial against the accused. If he comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if not he will discharge the accused. It must be remembered that this section was introduced in the Code to avoid waste of public time over cases which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure.

6. The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the 'consideration' by the trial Court at that stage. ……….. It is obvious that since he is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution.”

In N. Suresh Rajan, the Court expressed the following views on the role of trial Courts at the time of considering an application for discharge: “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the Court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

At this stage, probative value of the materials has not to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the Court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the Court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”