Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 553 - SC - Indian LawsUnaccounted properties possessed - Disproportionate sources of income - Held that:- Section 227 and 239 provide for discharge before the recording of evidence on the basis of the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the accused after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard. However, the stage of discharge under Section 245, on the other hand, is reached only after the evidence referred in Section 244 has been taken - The court is required at this stage to see that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused - Following R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1986) 2 SCC 716 [1986 (4) TMI 338 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - There is no scope for doubt that the stage at which the magistrate is required to consider the question of framing of charge under Section 245(1) is a preliminary one and the test of “prima facie” case has to be applied - If the Trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed - Accused N. Suresh Rajan has acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income in the names of his father and mother - The property in the name of an income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee - In case this proposition is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences - It will give opportunity to the corrupt public servants to amass property in the name of known persons, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law - While passing the impugned orders, the court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but whether that would warrant a conviction - This was not the stage where the court should have appraised the evidence and discharged the accused as if it was passing an order of acquittal - Defect in investigation itself cannot be a ground for discharge - The order impugned suffers from grave error and calls for rectification - The Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage of charge in accordance with law and make endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously – Decided in favour of petitioner.
|