Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 597 - SC - Indian LawsScope of exercise of power u/s 482 of the CrPC - commission of offences under Sections 120(8), 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1872 ('IPC') r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act') - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted mplete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors. [1992 (4) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT], it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions u/s 482 of the CrPC., which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved. Learned Single Judges did not keep in view the correct position in law while allowing the petitions filed by the respondents. It baffles us as to how a learned Single Judge while exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC could even direct grant of renewal of licence. It is somewhat akin to a learned Single Judge of another High Court directing creation of criminal courts to deal with cases under a particular statute. It is baffling how learned Single Judge referred to submissions purportedly made by learned Counsel for Bichitrananda who was not even a party. It is not clear how such submissions if any could be made. The conclusions are based on surmises and conjectures without any material to support them. Learned Single Judge arrived at certain conclusions which are utterly fallacious. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that interim protections were given by the High Court as regards the respondents being on bail. That protection shall continue, but in case the respondents fail to cooperate in the investigation and do not appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation as and when required, the interim protection shall cease to be operative and it shall be open to the investigating agency to move the concerned court for cancellation of the protection which was granted. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that in case charge sheet is filed and in the case where charge sheet is already filed, respondents shall seek discharge. If any such motion is made the concerned Court shall deal with the same in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion about the acceptability or otherwise of such motion, if made. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
|