Simple & Necessary Inquiry To Be Conducted While Examining Prima Facie Case For Discharge U/Sec 227 CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a simple and necessary inquiry can be conducted while considering discharge plea to find out whether a prima facie case is made out.

The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.

In this case, the discharge application filed by a person accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for having possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income) was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court refused to consider this objection on the ground that a roving inquiry is not permissible the stage of discharge. The Patna High Court dismissed the challenge against this order.

In appeal, Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar, who appeared for the appellant- accused, contended that, the basic objection relating to the calculation and wrongful inclusion of certain items was sufficient for the Trial Court to discharge the accused. AoR Abhinav Mukerji, for the respondent contended that the courts could not have conducted a roving inquiry while adjudicating an application. 

The bench, perusing the materials on record, found that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution and therefore the Appellant was entitled to be discharged. The court said:

The conclusions that we have drawn are based on materials placed before us, which are part of the case record. This is the same record that was available with the Special Judge (Vigilance) when the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was taken up. Despite that, the Special Judge (Vigilance) dismissed the discharge application on the simple ground that a roving inquiry is not permitted at the stage of discharge. What we have undertaken is not a roving inquiry, but a simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge. The Special Judge (Vigilance) was bound to conduct a similar inquiry for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the Appellant to stand trial. Unfortunately, the High Court committed the same mistake as that of the Special Judge (Vigilance).

The court also noted that the allegation relating to Appellant's disproportionate income in the period between 1974 and 1988 was levelled in an FIR filed twelve years after the said period concluded. The charge­sheet came to be filed seven years after the registration of the FIR. The application for discharge came to be dismissed on 28.03.2016, almost after a decade of filing of the charge sheet. "The dismissal was affirmed by the High Court seven months thereafter, i.e., on 05.10.2016. Finally, and most unfortunately, the present SLP has been pending before this Court for the last six years. In the meanwhile, the Appellant superannuated from service in 2010, but had no option except to contest the case. He is now 72 years. Continuation of the prosecution, apart from the illegality as indicated hereinabove, would also be unjust.", the court said.

Case details 

Kanchan Kumar vs State of Bihar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 763 | CrA 1562 OF 2022 | 14 September 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 227 - Simple and necessary inquiry to be conducted for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the accused to stand trial -  The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. (Para 12-18)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment