Deciding Authority : Supreme Court
Date of Judgement : 17.01.2000
Bench : K.T.Thomas, M.B.Shah
Facts : FIR was lodged at the Police Station Bhopal to the effect that there was criminal conspiracy in purchase of medicines for S.G.Cancer Hospital,Indore. At the relevant time, Dr. C.P. Tiwari was posted as Dean,Medical College,Dr. M.S. Dwivedi was working as Superintendent, Mr. S.B. Johari (Respondent No.1in SLP No.2854/99) was working as Medical Officer In-charge of Stores and Mr. Sudhir Pingle (Sole Respondent in SLP No.2855/99) was working as Accountant in the hospital. It is alleged that all the aforesaid accused entered into criminal conspiracy with some local businessmen of Indore by misusing their posts and also by using some forged documents that caused wrongful loss to the Government. It has been stated that though many of the items have not been purchased,amount is paid on bogus vouchers.On the basis of the material on record,it was pointed out that some medicines were purchased at Jabalpur at lesser price,roughly at half the rate. After considering the material on record,learned Sessions Judge framed the charge as stated above. That charge is quashed by the High Court against respondents by accepting the contention raised and considering details of material produced on record.The same is challenged by filing these appeals.
Judgement : Bench was of the view that that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused,even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence,if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi ors. v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya and Ors. reported in (1990) 4 SCC 76, after considering the provisions of Sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C., Court posed a question,whether at the stage of framing the charge, trial court should marshal the materials on the record of the case as he would do on the conclusion of the trial? The Court held that at the stage of framing the charge inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such materials constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The Court may peruse the records for that limited purpose,but it is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof. The Court referred to earlier decisions in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 . In the view exercise of appreciating the materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge is wholly unjustified. The entire approach of the High Court appears to be as if the Court was deciding the case as to whether accused are guilty or not.It was done without considering the allegations of conspiracy relating to the charge under Section 120-B.
In most of the cases, it is only from the available circumstantial evidence an inference of conspiracy is to be drawn.Further,the High Court failed to consider that medicines are normally sold at a fixed price and in any set of circumstances, it was for the prosecution to lead necessary evidence at the time of trial to establish its case that purchase of medicines for the Cancer Hospital at Indore was at a much higher price than the prevailing market rate. Further again non-joining of two remaining members to the Purchase Committee cannot be a ground for quashing the charge. After framing the charge and recording the evidence,if Court finds that other members of the Purchase Committee were also involved, it is open to the Court to exercise its power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Not only that, the Court erroneously considered the alleged statement of manufacturing company that quotations given by M/s Allied Medicine Agency,Indore were genuine without there being any cross-examination. The High Court ignored the allegation that many of the items have not been purchased and the amount is paid on bogus vouchers. Hence, there was no justifiable reason for the High Court to quash the charge framed by the trial court.
Held : Appeal Allowed .
Tejasv Anand , IV th Year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL,DELHI.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS