The Kerala High Court observed that the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the the Magistrate/Special Judge considers that the charge against the accused is groundless, i.e., when there is no legal evidence or when the facts are such that no offence is made out at all.

The Court said that no detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage.

In that context, the Bench of Justice K Babu observed that, "the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate/Special Judge considers the charge against the accused to be groundless that is, there is no legal evidence or when the facts are such that no offence is made out at all and 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."

Senior Counsel M Ramesh Chander, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while Special Government Pleader Rajesh A and Public Prosecutor Rekha appeared for the respondent.

The petitioners, accused of offences under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, preferred a revision plea after facing charges related to a conspiracy in granting permits for dredged material disposal at Azheekkal Port, Kannur.

The prosecution alleged pecuniary damage of Rs. 3,20,000 to the public exchequer due to the conspiracy. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted an investigation, and despite the petitioners' discharge plea, it was dismissed by the Trial Court.

The petitioners contended that a significant part of the investigation by a police officer was invalid under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which doesn't empower police officers for such inquiries. They also disputed the alleged loss to the public exchequer and challenged the validity of the investigation.

The prosecution cited Section 17's proviso, allowing police officers' authorization, and argued that the absence of published guidelines for dredging criteria doesn't negate criminal liability.

The Court observed that, "Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable, or there is nonconsideration of any relevant material, or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence."

In that context, it was further added that, "The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."

Subsequently, it was observed that the prosecution could produce the materials to show that accused No.1 had knowledge regarding the alleged transactions, and his inaction led to unlawful gain by accused Nos.3 and 4 and loss to the Government.

In light of the same, the Court upheld the finding of the Court below that the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners was a probable consequence, and that it required no interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: PP Farooque vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Kerala High CourtJustice K BabuCrPC

Verdictum News Desk