9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1915 - SC - Indian LawsIllegally printed lottery tickets recovered during investigation - possession of huge cash explained or not - Sections 294(A) 420 and 120(b) Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - The assessment made by the High Court at a stage when the investigation was yet to be completed is completely incorrect and uncalled for. Presence of two crucial facts was enough to let the investigation go on namely recovery of huge amount of cash of Rs. 7.2 crores from the house of one of the Accused and that such recovery was accepted by the Accused. The explanation given by them about the alleged transaction of agreement of sale and receipt of cash in pursuance thereof does not prima facie appear to be correct. The agreement is stated to have been entered on 02.03.2012 while the stamp paper in question was issued by the relevant department on 09.03.2012 to the vendor which was later sold to lady named Vimla on 13.3.2012. Whether the possession of huge cash amounting to Rs. 7.2 crores can be explained by the Accused and whether such explanation be accepted or not are all matters which will be gone into at the relevant stage in the proceedings. The investigation in any case ought not to have been set at naught but it ought to have been permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion. While the investigation was still incomplete the High Court ought not to have interfered in the present case - the view taken by the High Court is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of Crime No. 304 of 2012 by the High Court. 2. Interpretation of the legality of the investigation and quashing of the FIR. 3. Assessment of the High Court's decision regarding the ongoing investigation. Issue 1: Quashing of Crime No. 304 of 2012 by the High Court The original accused approached the High Court seeking the quashing of Crime No. 304 of 2012. The FIR was registered based on information about unaccounted money found in the house of one of the accused, allegedly from illegal activities related to lottery tickets. The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR, citing categories of cases where quashing is permissible as per previous court rulings. It noted the absence of specific offenses in the case and concluded that the accused should not face trial due to the improbable nature of the prosecution case. Issue 2: Interpretation of the legality of the investigation and quashing of the FIR During the investigation, lottery tickets and a document related to a property transaction were recovered. The High Court quashed the FIR based on the lack of specified offenses and the nature of the prosecution case. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's assessment premature and incorrect. It emphasized the significance of the recovery of a substantial amount of cash and the need for a thorough investigation to determine the validity of the accused's explanations regarding the cash transaction. The Supreme Court held that the investigation should not have been halted prematurely, emphasizing the importance of allowing the investigation to reach a logical conclusion before quashing the FIR. Issue 3: Assessment of the High Court's decision regarding the ongoing investigation The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defense of the accused. It focused on the premature interference by the High Court in quashing the FIR while the investigation was incomplete. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, allowing the restoration of Crime No. 304 of 2012 for further investigation. It emphasized the need to permit the investigation to proceed to its logical conclusion without prematurely halting the legal process, leaving all questions to be addressed at appropriate stages in the proceeding.
|
