NDLI: State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the applicationfor discharge filed by the accused; and as such whether theorder of the sanctioning authority is liable to be set aside andconsequently, the charge-sheet filed by Anti-Corruption Bureauis liable to be quashed.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 –Application for discharge – Principles to be consideredHeld: The court must proceed on an assumption that the materialbrought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluatethe said material to determine whether the facts disclose theexistence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged– It is necessary to determine whether a case has been madeout by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would notbe necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter byexamining the defence of the accused when an application fordischarge is filed – At that stage, the trial judge has to merelyexamine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order todetermine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceedagainst the accused on basis of charge sheet material – Natureof the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agencyor the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals thatthere are suspicious circumstances against the accused, soas to frame a charge would suffice and such material wouldbe taken into account for of framing the charge – If there is nosufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily,he would be discharged – Furthermore, the defence of theaccused is not to be looked into – Submission of the accusedis to be confined to the material produced by the investigatingagency. [Para 10, 7]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 227 – Right of theaccused to file any material or document at the stage offraming of charge:Held: At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizancethe accused has no right to produce any material and call uponthe court to examine the same – No provision in the Code grantsany right to the accused to file any material or document at thestage of framing of charge – Trial court has to apply its judicialmind to the facts of the case to determine whether a case hasbeen made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only – If the accused is able to demonstrate fromthe charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the charge whichmight drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfairto suggest that such material should not be considered or ignoredby the court at that stage – Main intention of granting a chanceto the accused of making submissions as envisaged u/s. 227 isto assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceedto conduct the trial. [Para 8, 9]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Power andjurisdiction of higher court under – Exercise of:Held: The Court is vested with the power to call for and examinerecords of an inferior court for satisfying itself as to the legality andregularities of any proceeding or order made in a case – Object isto set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or theperversity which has crept in such proceedings. [Para 13]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 –Application for discharge – Filing of, by the accused on theground that the investigating officer failed to consider thewritten explanation offered by him with supporting documents,that the conclusion reached by the sanctioning authoritythat the accused possessed assets disproportionate to hisknown source of income is erroneous and that the charge-sheet material do not reveal any circumstances or evidenceto arrive at the said conclusion – Rejected by the trial court,however, the High Court allowed application filed u/s. 397/401– Interference with:Held: High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasonedorder passed by the trial court – Revisional court cannot sit asan appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by findingout inconsistency which is not legally permissible – High Courtsought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with anapplication for discharge – Charge-sheet has been filed after takinginto consideration the written submissions filed by the accusedbefore the Investigating Authority which included the documentaryevidences tendered by the accused – High Court proceeded toexamine the pros and cons of defense by weighing the defence-evidence and probabilities of the conclusion – Trial judge noticedthat explanation provided by the accused pertaining to purchaseof shop from the loan borrowed and paid by the accused wasoutside the check period and hence the explanation provided byaccused is a mere eye wash which has to be thrashed out duringthe course of the trial – Thus, the impugned judgment setting asidethe trial court order is set aside. [Para 15-18]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 894
Petitioner	State Of Gujarat
Respondent	Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao
SCR	[2023] 13 S.C.R. 847
Judgement Date	2023-10-09
Case Number	2504

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 of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao

Please Log-in to view this content

N.natarajan Vs. B.k. Subba Rao

Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Sunil Mehta & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Gujarat

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat

Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.

Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao

State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

N.natarajan Vs. B.k. Subba Rao

Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Sunil Mehta & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Gujarat

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat

Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.

Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao