Rajesh Kumar V. The Union of India through CBI

Cr.Rev./519/2022

AI Insights

Rajesh Kumar, a Postal Assistant, was accused of accumulating disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.82,51,673.80 during the period from January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2019. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged him under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Kumar's discharge application was rejected by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, leading to the filing of the current revision petition. The petitioner argued that his income and the sources of his assets were not properly considered, and that there were errors in the computation of his disproportionate assets. The CBI countered that the petitioner had not provided satisfactory explanations or supporting documents for his wife's income during the investigation. The High Court, referencing established legal precedents, affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the materials presented by the prosecution were sufficient to warrant a trial.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801379 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, State Vs R. Soundirarasu, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI
• Laws Referred To: Prevention of Corruption Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P A S PATI
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KUMAR; AVISHEK PRASAD
• Keywords: Charge framing; Corruption; Disproportionate assets; Judicial scrutiny; Defence at trial
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(d); 13(1)(b); 13(1)(e)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.519 of 2022 ------ Rajesh Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. Special P.P. ------ Order No.07 Dated : 05.04.2023 1. Instant criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2022 whereby and whereunder the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with RC Case No.04(A)/2019-R under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by learned A.J.C.- XVIII cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 2. The petitioner is Postal Assistant in Postal Department and as per prosecution case, he earned disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.82,51,673.80/- to the known source of his income for the check period 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2019. 3. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(e) and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act. 4. The revision petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner had duly explained his income and the assets from which it will be apparent that there was error in computation of the disproportionate assets of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that there was an error to peg the assets of the petitioner at the beginning of the check period to Rs.4,78,056/- which was far less than the assets at the beginning of the check period which he had acquired through his salary from the service which he had joined way back in 1994 in the Postal Department as postal assistant. He had also agriculture income from ancestral property. At the time of his marriage in 1997, his wife had received heavy cash and jewelries from her parental house. Details of source of assets has been given which is claimed to have not been considered by the C.B.I. nor the learned Court below while rejecting the discharge petition. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf C.B.I. that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner is entitled to his defence at the stage of trial. It is also submitted that income tax return of the wife of the petitioner was filed for the year 2013-14 to 2018-19 regarding which during investigation, no supporting documents nor any satisfactory explanation could be given. 2 7. What is the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing of charge is no longer res integra. There is a long line of judicial precedents that the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of discharge, is a limited one. While considering a petition under Section 239, the Trial Court is required to consider only the police report and the papers forwarded along with it. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defence need to be undertaken at this stage. The test for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever. Where material on record discloses offence, accused cannot be discharged. It has been held in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : AIR 1977 SC 2018] the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi; (2005) 1 SCC 568 23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. State Vs R. Soundirarasu; 2022 SCC On Line 1150 75. The ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 239 and 240 of the CrPC, are therefore fairly well settled. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be “groundless”. The Section mandates that the Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, if after (i) considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, (ii) examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii) giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, i.e., either there is no legal evidence or that the facts are such that no offence is made out at all. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage - the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless. 79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. 83. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of the CrPC. At 3 the stage of Section 239 of the CrPC, the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless. Emphasis supplied 8. The Revisional Court cannot enter into the detailed question of facts and plea of defence that is being raised. It has been held in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 37. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter. After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in view of the settled position of law on the point. The revision petition, is accordingly, dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit "