The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated that High Courts should not hold a mini trial at the stage of discharge application or framing of charge. (State of Rajasthan vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap).
The Supreme Court observed that defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of the charge and/or at the stage of discharge application.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-accused was serving as a Patwari, when it was alleged by the complainant that that for the purpose of issuing Domicile Certificate and OBC Certificate of his son, but the Patwari in lieu of endorsing his report demanded a bribe of Rs.2,800. Prsuant to the said complaint an investigation was conducted and the accused was chargesheeted on reaching to the findings that there was a prima facie case made out under Section 7 of the PC Act.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied the accused preferred revision application before the High Court whereby the High Court had discharged the accused. The State had preferred the present appeal.
Contention of the Parties
It was submitted by the state that the High Court had committed a grave error in evaluating the transcript/evidence on merits which at the stage of considering the application for discharge is not permissible and is beyond the scope of the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the accused had been charged for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and even an attempt is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
The defense raised by the respondent-accused was that, he had refused to issue residence certificate for Rajasthan and caste certificate in favour of complainant having come to know about the complaint being the permanent resident of Agra and that the complainant wanted a false residence certificate and caste certificate illegally. It was submitted that in fact the respondent-accused gave a report rejecting the request of the complainant and there was nothing pending before the accused and the decision regarding his application was already taken.
The respondent submitted that at the time of conversation two persons were present, (1) the complainant – Jai Kishore; and (2) Devi Singh. And the so far as the complainant was concerned, the accused categorically refused to accept any bribe. However, it was alleged that the appellant had tried to confuse and mislead the Court by mixing the conversation of Devi Singh regarding his dues of Rs.4,850-/ to the bank against which he had paid Rs.2,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.2,850/- was due to the bank. Thus, neither there was any acceptance nor there was any demand of bribe and the High Court has rightly discharged the accused.
The Counsel placed reliance on the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, where it was held that, by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him will give rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench noted that while discharging the accused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. The High Court has considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the discharge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all, the bench added.
The court while upholding the Special Court order framing charges against the accused observed, At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. Therefore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application.. We are not further entering into the merits of the case and/or merits of the transcript as the same is required to be considered at the time of trial. Defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of the charge and/or at the stage of discharge application."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
