NDLI: State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 401 1973: ss.239 397
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.239, 397, 401 – Discharge of accused – Respondent No.1 was serving as Motor Vehicle Inspector during the check period – Respondent No. 2 is his wife who is a commerce graduate and is claiming to have a separate source of income and paying the income tax from 1990 onwards – FIR registered against Respondent No.1 for offences u/ s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act r/w s.109 IPC – During investigation, role of his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 surfaced as an abettor – Charge sheet filed in the Court of the Special Judge – Respondents filed petition u/s.239 for discharge – Special Judge rejected the petition and held that there was a prima facie case against the accused persons to put them to trial for alleged offence and charges levelled against them cannot be said to be groundless so as to discharge them from prosecution – Respondents filed revision applications before High Court – High Court discharged the respondents – On appeal, held: s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act 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 – legal effect of s.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 – accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of s.239 – The circumstances emerging from the record of the case indicate the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence – It cannot be said that the charge against the accused persons was groundless – Special Court directed to frame charges against the accused persons and put them to trial – Penal Code,1860 – s.109 - Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Known sources of income – Defined – It refers to the sources known to the prosecution and not to the accused. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The onus or burden is on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets found to be possessed by the public servant. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Whether the investigating officer before filing FIR should consider explanation offered by the accused – Held: The accused public servant does not have a right to be afforded a chance to explain the alleged disproportionate assets to the investigating officer before the filing of a chargesheet, a similar right cannot be granted to the accused before the filing of an FIR by making a preliminary inquiry mandatory. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Stage of charge framing – Approach of Court – Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged – Court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.239 – Prima facie case u/s.239 – If the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused – The word ‘groundless’ means that there must be no ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence and that the materials placed before the Court do not make out or are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused – If no prima facie case regarding the commission of any offence is made out, it would amount to a charge being groundless. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Revisional powers of High Court – Ambit and scope of – Held: Revisional power can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected – The revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner – Revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power – A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court – This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged – It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 915
Petitioner	State Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Respondent	R. Soundirarasu Etc.
SCR	[2022] 7 S.C.R. 630
Judgement Date	2022-09-05
Case Number	1452

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Satin Chandra Pegu Vs. State of Assam

Johar and Others Vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.

Kumar Etc. Etc. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs. State of H.p.

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others

A.k. Subbaiah & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Mishra

Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc.

State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Satin Chandra Pegu Vs. State of Assam

Johar and Others Vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.

Kumar Etc. Etc. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs. State of H.p.

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others

A.k. Subbaiah & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Mishra

Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc.