Meticulous Consideration For Presence Or Absence Of Clinching Material Is Beyond Court's Scope Of Power While Considering Question Of Discharge U/S 239 CrPC: SC
The Supreme Court held that, meticulous consideration for presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while considering the question of discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Orissa High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “In the common parlance the word ‘clinch’ means ‘point’ or circumstance that settles the issue. We have no hesitation to hold that such meticulous consideration for presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while considering the question of discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. as also while considering the question of quashing of charge framed by the Trial Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is to be noted that at that stage the materials collected by the prosecution would not mature into evidence and therefore, beyond the question of existence or otherwise prima facie case based on materials, the question whether they are clinching or not could not be gone into.”
AOR Shibashish Misra appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate SB Upadhyay appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, an FIR was registered against the husband of the Respondent under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). In the course of the inquiry, it was found that he is a public servant working as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Sub-Division, Kakatpur, District Puri and was in possession of disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 40,54,561/-. He was unable to account for such resources for the disproportionate income and therefore, found him liable to be prosecuted under the aforesaid sections of the PC Act.
The Trial Court found that there is a potential prima facie case against the Respondent and her husband and the same could not be interfered with at the nascent stage. The High Court held that there is no clinching material to show that the Appellant abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigation for the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. Hence, the State approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In the decision in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Anr., this Court held that the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises only when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.”
The Court said that, while considering the question of abetment for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the question is whether there is material(s) or circumstances casting strong suspicion of the co-accused to have played significant role in negotiating on the figure of amount disproportionately amassed.
“… the judgment under challenge in the case on hand cannot stand the scrutiny. The High Court has clearly erred in its approach and exercise of revisional jurisdiction in quashing the charge framed by the Trial Court upon finding a prima facie case, and also in discharging the respondent – Smt. Pratima Behera”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- The State of Orissa v. Pratima Behera (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1010)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Shibashish Misra
Respondent: Senior Advocate SB Upadhyay and Advocate Lalitendu Mohapatra.
