Hem Chand Vs. State of
Jharkhand  INSC 447 (13 March 2008)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5934 of 2007)
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is an IPS Officer of 1971 batch of the West Bengal cadre.
He joined the Central Coalfields Ltd., a Government Company as a Chief
Vigilance Officer on deputation. He was re-designated as Executive Director
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 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 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 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 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.B.I. while passing the order on the
matter of discharge."
4. Appellant filed an application for his discharge inter alia 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 that the documents relied
on by the appellant cannot be looked into for the purpose 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 of the impugned judgment.
5. Appellant admittedly, is facing trial for an alleged commission of an
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 assets more than his known source of income.
The question is as to whether any documents, whereupon the appellant may
rely upon in support of his defence, can be looked into at the stage of framing
of the charge.
6. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on 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 rely thereupon.
7. Mr. B.B. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on
the other hand, would submit that from a perusal of the order passed by the
learned Special Judge, it would be 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 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 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 charges could not have been framed
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 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 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 to the assets of
the appellant which are reflected in his declaration of assets made annually by
11. The learned Special Judge, however, considering the documents on record
"But at this stage I find that unless the documents filed 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 sections against the accused
petitioner. Hence, the above 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 Judge 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 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 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 the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any. 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 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;
"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 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."
We agree with the said view. We may, however, add that in this case, this Court is not concerned with
other legal principles, which would be applied in determining the issues at
13. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which
is dismissed accordingly.