Chargesheet came to be filed seven years after the registration of the FIR: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that the chargesheet came to be filed seven years after the registration of the FIR.
Background
The Appellant joined the Bihar State Financial Corporation in the capacity of an Assistant General Manager. After a period of thirteen years, in 1987, a complaint came to be filed against the Appellant for having allegedly purchased three houses and two pieces of land in Bihar, which according to the complainant, was disproportionate to Appellant’s known sources of income.
The complaint was inquired into, and after a detailed investigation, the allegations were found to be false.
Except for a residential house in Patna, which the Appellant had purchased with the help of a loan from the BSFC, no other assets could be traced to the ownership of the Appellant. However, despite finding no merit in the allegation, the investigation was kept pending.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar submitted that the basic objection relating to the calculation and wrongful inclusion of certain items was sufficient for the Trial Court to discharge the Appellant.
Abhinav Mukerji AOR, appearing for the Respondent, contended that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the discharge application.
He submitted that the Courts could not have conducted a roving inquiry while adjudicating an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
Decision
The division bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed that the threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 of the 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 court said that the facts clearly demonstrate that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution and therefore the Appellant was entitled to be discharged.
The court noted that the same record, which was before the court, 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 grounds 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” the court said.
The court while allowing the Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna and that of the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna.
Case title: Kanchan Kumar v/s The State of Bihar
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1562 of 2022
