Supreme Court of India
HEM CHANDversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 362
- Decided
- 13 March 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
At the charge‑framing stage the court may only ascertain a prima facie case and cannot consider defence documents, so the appellant’s documents cannot be looked into for the discharge application.
Summary
Hem Chand, Executive Director (Vigilance) of a government company, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets beyond his known income. He filed an application for discharge, relying on an Income Tax assessment order and his asset declaration, and submitted these documents to the Special Judge, CBI. The Special Judge rejected the discharge, holding that such documents could not be examined at the charge‑framing stage, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether defence documents may be looked into when charges are being framed. It held that at the charge‑framing stage the court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists and it does not weigh evidence or consider defence documents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether documents filed by the accused in support of his defence can be examined at the stage of framing of charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(e), s. 13(2)
Subjects
Prevention of Corruption Actcharge framingdischarge applicationprima facie caseevidence appraisalCBIgovernment company
Judgment
• [2008] 4 S.C.R. 985
HEM CHAND A
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2008)
MARCH 13, 2008
B
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 13(2) rlw 13(1 )(e)
- Charges of corruption against Executive Director
(Vigilance)in Government Company - Accused filed c
application for discharge and filed some documents in his
defence - Special Judge, CBI dismissed the application
holding that documents relied on by appellant could not be
looked into for passing order on his application - Propriety of
- Held: Proper - The Court at the stage of framing charge
D
exercises a limited jurisdiction - It would only have to see as
to whether a prima facie case has been made out - At that
stage, it woald not delve deep into the matter for purpose of
appreciation of evidence - It would ordinarily not consider as
to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence,
if any. E
Appellant, Executive Director (Vigilance) in a
Government Company, faced trial for alleged commission
of offence under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 on charges of corruption. It was F
.._, alleged that he was in possession of assets more than
his known sources of income. Charge-sheet was filed.
Appellant filed application for discharge and filed some
documents in his defence. The Special Judge, CBI
dismissed the application holding that documents relied
G
on by Appellant could not be looked into for passing order
on his application. Revision application filed by appellant
under s.397 CrPC was dismissed by the High Court.
The question which arose for consideration in the
985 H
A
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
present appeal is as to whether the documents,
•
whereupon the Appellant relied upon in support of his
defence, can be looked into at the stage of framing of the
charges .
The contention of the Appellant is that it was evident
8 that the CBI itself had seized the said documents from
the residence of the appellant and hence, he could rely
thereupon.
The State, on the other hand, submitted that the
c appellant intended to rely upon some documents which
were filed before the Special Judge for the first time,
hence, the impugned judgment of High Court should not
be interfered with.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. At the stage of framing of charge, the
Court will not weigh the evidence. The stage for
appreciating the evidence for the purpose of ·~rriving at a
conclusion as to whether the prosecution was able to
bring home the charge against the accused or not would
E arise only after all the evidences are brought on records
at the trial. [Para 8] [989-G, H; 990-A]
1.2 The documents whereupon the appellant
intended to rely upon were: (i) an order of assessment
F passed by the Income Tax Authority and (ii) his declaration
of assets. It is one thing to say that on the basis of the
admitted documents, the appellant was in a position to
show that the charges could not have been framed against
him, but it is another thing to say that for the said purpose
G he could rely upon some documents whereupon the
prosecution would not rely upon [Paras 8, 9] [990-B, C]
1.3 The Special Judge, CBI noticed that sixteen
number of documents had been filed by the appellant
together with his application for discharge. The
H prosecution has also relied upon a large number of
e
HEM CHAND v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 987
documents which were 56 in number, out of which 5 being A
related to the matter of investigation, have nothing to do
with the merit of the matter. Out of the 51 documents,
seventeen related to the expenditure purported to have
_J
been incurred by the appellant. Four documents related
to income of the appellant's wife. Out of remaining 30 B
documents, 6 documents related to the assets of his wife
exclusively and one related to his mother's assets. 23
"'I documents, thus, related to the assets of the appellant
which are reflected in his declaration of assets made
annually by him. [Para 10] [990-D, E, F] c
1.4 What has been refused to be looked into by the
Special Judge. CBI related the documents filed by the
appellant alongwith his application for discharge. The
Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited
jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a D
prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of
probable conviction for commission of an offence has
been made out on the basis of the materials found during
inve.stigation should be the concern of the Court. It, at that
stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the E
purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily
not consider as to whether the accused would be able to
establish his defence, if any. [Para 12] [991-A, B, C]
"'"(
State of MP v. Mohan/al Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 and F
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 -
relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 470 of 2008.
G
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2007 of
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. Revision No. 1074
of 2004.
Saurabh Mishra for the Appellant.
H
I
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A B.B. Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is an IPS Officer of 1971 batch of the West
B Bengal cadre. He joined the Central Coalfields Lt.d., a
Government Company as a Chief Vigilance Officer. on·
deputation. He was re-designated as Executive Di'recto.r
(Vigilance). .,
c A raid was conducted by the CBI Officials at his residence
in the night of 30/31.8.1992, pursuant whereto, a first information
report was lodged. A charge sheet was filed in the said case
against him on or about 18.6.1997. Appellant filed an application
inter alia for supply of the copies of item Nos. 1 and 20 of .the
o documents mentioned in the said charge sheet. The same was
not issued to him. Several contentions in regard thereto were
raised. He moved the High Court in revision which was marked · "
as Criminal Revision No. 90 of 1999
3. By an order dated 20.4.2001, a learned Single Judge·
E of the High Court directed supply of the said documents to the
petitioner, stating;
"16. Various points were raised on behalf of both sides
but it is unnecessary to enter into all those points on merit
at this stage as I find that the order passed by the learned
F
Special Judge has got to be set aside and thus it would.
be appropriate to remit the matter back to the court below
leaving it open to the parties to raise ·their respective·
contentions before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. and
the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi is directed to
G
furnish the copies of Item Nos. 1 and 20 of the Search List
to the accused/petitioner and those documents may also
be taken into consideration along with other documents
placed by the C.8.1. while passing the order on the matter
of discharge."
H
• HEM CHAND v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
989
4. Appellant filed an application for his discharge inter alia A
on the premise that no case for framing of charge has been
made out. He, furthermore, filed some documents in his own
defence. The said application for discharge was rejected by
the learned Special Judge, CBI, opining thatthe documents
relied on by the appellant cannot be looked into for the purpose 8
of passing an order on his application for discharge. Revision
Application filed by the appellant thereagainst under Section
397 of. the Code of Criminal
.
Procedure has been dismissed by
~ the High Court by reason ofthe impugned judgment.
5. Appellant admittedly, is facing trial far an a.lleged c
commission of ah .offence under Section 13(2) read with Section ·
13(1 )(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.
Allegations against the appellant are that he was found to
be in possession of ass~ts more than his known source of
D
income.
~
. .. The question is as to whether any documents, whereupon
the appellant may rely upon in support of his defence, can be
lpoked into at the stage of framing of the charge.
6. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on E
behalf of the appellant would submit that keeping in view the
order passed by the High Court on 20.4.2001 in Criminal
Revision No. 90 of 1999, it is evident that Central Bureau of
Investigation itself has seized the said documents from the
residence of the appellant and in that view of the matter, he could F
'"" ~ rely thereupon.
7. Mr. B.B. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, on the other hand, would submit thatfrom a perusal
of the order passed by the learned Special Judge, it would be G
evident that the appellant intended to rely upon some documents
which were filed before the learned Special Judge for the first
time, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.
8. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court will not weigh the evidence. The H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 4 S.C.R.
••
A stage for appreciating the evidence for the purpose of arriving
at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution was able to bring
home the charge against the accused or not would arise only
after all the evidences are brought on records at the trial.
The documents whereupon the appellant intended to rely
B upon were: (i) an order of assessment passed by the Income
Tax Authority and (ii) his declaration of assets.
9. It is one thing to say that on the basis of the admitted
documents, the appellant was in a position to show that the
c charges could not have been framGd against .him, but it is
another thing to say that for the said purpose he could rely upon
some documents whereupon the. prosecution would not rely
upon.
_10. The learned Special Judge has noticed that sixteen
D number of documents had been filed by the appellant together
with his application for discharge. The prosecution has also
relied upon a large number of documents which were 56 in
number, out of which 5 being related to the matter of investigation,
have nothing to do with the merit of the matter. Out of the 51
E documents, seventeen related to the expenditure purported to ·
have been incurred by the appellant. Four documents related to
income of the appellant's wife. Out of remaining 30 documents,
6 documents related to the assets of his wife exclusively and
one related to his mother's assets. 23 documents, thus, related
F to. the assets of the appellant which are reflected in his
declaration of assets made annually by him.
11. The learned Special Judge, however, considering the
documents on record opined;
" ... But at this stage ! find that unless the documents filed
G
by the defence are not formally proved no finding can be
given, because it would amount to discussion the merit of
the case before conclusion of trial. However, the materials
collected in the case diary by the prosecution reveals that
there are ground for framing charge under the aforesaid
H
,,
HEM CHAND v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 991
[S.8. SINHA, J.J--
sections against the accused petitioner. Hence, the above A
petition stands rejected."
12. The learned counsel for the CBI is, thus, correct in his
submission that what has been refused to be looked into by the
learned Special JlJdge rel~ted the documents filed by t}l~
appellant alongwith his application for discharge. 8
The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a
limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a
prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of
probable conviction for commission of an offence has been c
made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation
should be the concern of the Court. It, at that stage, would not
delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of
evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether th1;1
accused would be able to establish his defence, if any.
D
In State of M.P Vs. Mohan/al Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338] 1
. ~ this Court has held;
"7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of
framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against E
the accused. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
It was furthermore observed; F
"; .. As is evident from the paragraph extracted above if
the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out
.for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed.
Per contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes
to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully: G
accepted before it is challenged by the cross-examination
or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show
that the accused committed the particular offence then the
charge can be quashed."
H
992 · SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [2008]'4 S.C.R.
A We agree with the said view.
.. . . . . .
See also State of Orissa Vs.Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005)
1 sec sea1
We may, however, add thatin this case, .this Court is not
s concerned with other legal principles, Which would be applied
· i.n determining the iss.ues at that l;itage ;
13. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no· merit in
this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. .
· c 8.8.B.. . Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Prevention of Corruption Act"Sign in to search