Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1333 OF 2022
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.3440 OF 2021]
PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND ..…RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Appellant has assailed the final judgment dated
06.01.2020 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in
Criminal Revision No. 1057 of 2018, by which the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2022.08.24
17:16:40 IST
Reason:
04.07.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, AntiCorruption
1
Bureau dismissing the application for discharge filed by the
Appellant under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short “ ”) in connection with Special Case No. 02 of
Cr.P.C.
2011 has been affirmed. The criminal case was registered against
the Appellant and others for commission of offences under
Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120B of Indian
Penal Code (for short “ IPC ”) and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “
PC
Act ”).
3. The facts briefly put are that the Appellant was working as
an Executive Engineer (Electrical) (“ EE ”) in the Accelerated Power
Development Reforms Program (“ APDRP ”) Wing of Jharkhand
State Electricity Board (in short “ JSEB ”) from 07.12.2004. During
his tenure as EE, one Ramjee Power Construction Limited
(hereinafter “ ”) was awarded a contract of work under
RPCL
APDRP vide work order dated 27.01.2005. On account of delay in
execution of the work and to resolve the said issue, the then
Chairman JSEB, Mr. Shivendu, convened a meeting on
21.12.2006, wherein he orally instructed Mr. R.P. Agarwal, the
then Chief Engineer (“ CE ”), to place the agenda for next board
2
meeting for termination of the contract of M/s RPCL. Prior to
convening of the next Board meeting, Mr. V.N. Pandey was
appointed as the new Chairman, JSEB on 04.01.2007. The new
Chairman called for a meeting on 06.02.2007/07.02.2007 for the
agenda to review the progress of RPCL’s work. In the said
meeting, other officers of JSEB including Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE,
had participated. In the meeting, it was mutually agreed by JSEB
and RPCL that full effort to complete the work within the
extended time, i.e. July, 2007 shall be made by RPCL. In
furtherance of the decision taken in the aforesaid meeting, Mr.
R.P. Agarwal, CE, made various correspondences reminding
RPCL to complete the pending work. On retirement of Mr. R.P.
Agarwal, Mr. S.C. Shrivastava Superintending Engineer
(Electrical) was made in charge in place of Mr. R.P. Agarwal.
Meanwhile, RPCL sent letters dated 16.05.2007, 18.05.2007 and
08.06.2007 requesting him for further extension of time. In the
said correspondences, it was said that RPCL had already invoked
the arbitration clause on 22.12.2006, in terms of the contract
and requested JSEB for appointment of an arbitrator. The said
letters were handed over to the Appellant, on which under the
instructions, the Appellant prepared a note dated 08.06.2007
3
and placed it before the Chairman on the issue relating to
appointment of an arbitrator and waiver of penalty, as advised by
learned Advocate General (“ ”) of State of Jharkhand in
AG
similarly placed transmission lines projects.
4. Thereafter, vide JSEB resolution dated 28.06.2007, a
committee consisting of one Mr. GNS Munda (Member,
Technical), Mr. A. Banerjee (Finance) and Mr. A.K. Mishra (Law
Officer) was constituted, which on 09.08.2007 suggested three
names for appointment of an Arbitrator. Out of the three names
as suggested, Mr. Ramayan Pandey was appointed as the
arbitrator by consent. Arbitration proceedings commenced and
an interim award dated 25.11.2007 was passed in favour of
RPCL. Thereafter, an agenda accompanied with the aforesaid
award was put before Chairman, Mr. B.M. Verma prior to asking
for an opinion from the AG, State of Jharkhand, regarding
enforceability of the award. Later, as per the opinion of the AG,
JSEB vide Board Resolution dated 05.04.2008 and 07.04.2008,
decided to implement the interim award. It is worthwhile to state
that, Mr. GNS Munda (Member, Technical) as well as Smt.
4
Rajbala Verma (then Finance Secretary, State of Jharkhand) were
part of this Board meeting.
5. It is pertinent to mention that, while giving effect to the
award, JSEB was facing shortage of funds. However, JSEB
decided to make internal enquiry into handling the work contract
given to RPCL. On the basis of the said enquiry, allegations of
malpractice and financial irregularity were levelled against the
Appellant and some others. The Secretary, JSEB vide letter dated
30.07.2010, made a request to the Director General of Vigilance
Bureau (“ ”) to lodge an FIR against the Appellant and others
DGP
for offences punishable under Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471,
477A and 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of PC Act. Additionally, another letter dated 03.09.2010,
was issued by Smt. Rajbala Verma (then Vigilance Commissioner)
to the DGP, recommending the same action against the
Appellant. As already noted above, Smt. Rajbala Verma was also
a part of the Board meeting (being the then Finance Secretary,
State of Jharkhand) that had approved the implementation of the
arbitral award. In the said facts, FIR dated 20.01.2011 was
lodged against the Appellant and other officers of the JSEB.
5
Investigation was carried out, chargesheet dated 08.01.2016 was
filed and cognizance was taken by the Court dealing with
vigilance cases vide order dated 11.01.2016. Thereafter, the
Appellant moved a discharge petition under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by the learned Special
Judge vide order dated 04.07.2018. The Court observed that
sufficient material exists to make out a primafacie case against
the Appellant for framing of charges.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred a criminal
revision assailing the aforesaid order. The High Court vide
impugned order dismissed the revision and affirmed the order
passed by the learned Special Judge. The High Court was
primafacie influenced by the fact that the previous chairman,
JSEB, Mr. Shivendu had orally instructed to put up the agenda
for termination of the contract of RPCL. On demitting the office
by the said Chairman, the Appellant had put the file noting
before the subsequent Chairman Mr. V.N. Pandey, regarding
referral of the matter for arbitration without mentioning about
the instructions given by the previous Chairman, JSEB. The High
Court found fault in the action of the Appellant of having
6
proposed an agenda regarding wrongful implementation of the
award which was challenged belatedly. Thus, having found a
primafacie case against the Appellant, the High Court dismissed
the revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Prashant Bhushan
strenuously urged as under:
(i)
the Appellant was not having decisionmaking power or
financial authority to carry out the contract and the award
passed. The nature of duty assigned to the Appellant was
confined to follow instructions of his superiors and by no
stretch of imagination he can be said to have the power to
refer the matter for arbitration in a case where the dispute
is arising out of a work contract between JSEB and RPCL;
(ii)
there is no concealment of the instruction of the previous
Chairman pertaining to termination of the contract as
substantiated by noting dated 08.06.2007 on page no. 48 of
the APDRP file which was the next page of noting of the CE
on page no. 47, under instructions from the Chairman;
(iii) the prosecution has concealed that the verbal instruction
for termination of contract given by the previous Chairman
7
in the meeting dated 21.12.2006, had been overturned
within two months by the new Chairman, Mr. V.N. Pandey
in the JSEB tripartite meeting held on 06.02.2007 and
07.02.2007, in which the Appellant was not a member;
(iv)
the questionable noting dated 08.06.2007 of the Appellant
was based on facts and documents forming part of the
APDRP file endorsed to him by his controlling officer;
(v) the Appellant is being prosecuted on a wrong premise from
the stage of granting time to complete the work, reference
made to arbitration and till further directions for making the
payment for the interim award passed against JSEB, in
favour of the RPCL. He was not a part of the decision
making process or of taking further steps to implement the
said award. Thus, culpability as alleged against the
Appellant, on the pretext of not putting up the agenda for
cancellation of the contract amounts to abuse of the power
and primafacie, no case to prosecute him is made out;
(vi) there is no allegation of illegal gratification, undue benefit or
disproportionate assets qua the Appellant in the FIR or
chargesheet which is also backed by the income tax records
of the Appellant;
8
(vii)
prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the
Appellant and RPCL to whom the benefit is alleged to have
been made;
(viii) while granting bail to the Appellant on merits, it was
categorically observed by the High Court that the Appellant
had put up the matter before higher authorities for
instructions before proceeding further and did not act
unilaterally;
(ix) except for the Director of Finance, none of the decision
making authorities namely, members of Central Purchase
Committee and the Board of JSEB have been made accused
in this case;
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the RespondentState has
argued in support of the concurrent findings of both the Courts
and contended that the entire factual gamut of the instant appeal
stems around the pleadings of defence including reliance on
documents which cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.
It is further urged that at the stage of framing of charge, the
scope of interference is limited, and the Court is not required to
see as to whether there are sufficient grounds for conviction. The
9
Court has to only see the material collected during investigation
and on consideration of the same, a prima facie case is made out
or not.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, which reveals that after the board meeting
dated 21.12.2006, the then Chairman Mr. Shivendu had orally
instructed the then CE, Mr. R.P. Agarwal to place the agenda for
termination of the contract of RPCL. As per the said instructions,
the agenda was proposed and placed on 27.12.2006 by Mr. R.P.
Agarwal. On the said proposed agenda, Member Technical put up
a note on 19.01.2007, recording “please discuss” . Thereafter, the
meeting of the JSEB was held on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007,
which was presided over by the new Chairman Mr. V.N. Pandey
and Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE, was a member of the said meeting.
Either at the stage of the proposed agenda or in the meeting of
the JESB held on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007, the Appellant had
not participated in the decisionmaking process. The minutes of
the aforesaid meeting is relevant and reproduced as under:
“MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 06.02.2007 &
07.02.2007 AT JSEB HQR.
The following officer, consultant & contractors were present in
the meeting:
10
1. Shri V.N. Pandey Chairman
2. Shri R.P. Agarwal Chief Engineer (APDRP)
3. Shri P. Ranjan General Managercum
Chief Engineer/Jamshedpur
4. Shri Niranjan Rai Director (Finance)
5. Shri Madhup Kumar Director (RE/Plan)
6. Shri P. Raghu RITES Ltd.
7. Shri Y.P. Singh do
8. Shri A.K. Singh RPCL
9. Shri T.K. Bhattacharya do
The issue of M/s RPCL was discussed in length. Work of
Jamshedpur town under APDRP has been awarded to M/s RPCL
vide W.O. Nos. 28 & 29 dated 27.01.2005. The progress was
reviewed and found that progress is veryvery slow. After
discussion, JSEB & M/s RPCL mutually agreed on the following
points:
1. M/s RPCL will submit photo copy of all orders placed by them
for procurement of materials for the APDRP work of
Jamshedpur to Chief Engineer/APDRP & m/s RITES Ltd., the
consultant.
2. JSEB will help Ms RPCL for procurement of materials.
3. JSEB will be make payment immediately (probably within a
week) after submission of bills by M/s RPCL.
4. Approval of additional B.O.Q. and items shall be given by
JSEB immediately.
5. M/s RPCL will submit fresh inspection call of materials to
Electrical Superintending EngineercumCEO/General
ManagercumChief Engineer, Jamshedpur for getting
inspecting officer deputed.
6. M/s RPCL will contract Chief Engineer (APDRP) if here is any
delay in issuing Road permits by Chief Engineer (S&P).
7. M/s RPCL agreed that they will apply their full efforts to
complete the project so that it may be completed within
extended completion period i.e. July’ 07 instead of going for
Arbitration/Court of Law.
8. JSEB will review the matter of L.D. clause after completion of
the project work.
Sd/
11
(R.P. Agrawal)
Chief Engineer (APDRP)
Memo No.
Dated
Copy forwarded to all concerned officers/M/s RITES Ltd./ M/s
RPCL for information and necessary action.
Fax – 2543986”
10. The perusal of the aforesaid minutes and the proposed
agenda dated 27.12.2006 prepared by Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE,
reveals that the oral recommendation of the then Chairman, Mr.
Shivendu, was drawn in the proposed agenda but it was not
acted upon as per the noting dated 19.01.2007 made by the
Member Technical who made an endorsement “Please discuss” .
Thereafter, what was the agenda that was put forth in the next
JSEB meeting, is not on record. The minutes of the Board
meeting reflect that Mr. R.P. Agarwal who had prepared the
agenda dated 27.12.2006, was a part of the said meeting. The
decisions were taken in the said meeting with the mutual consent
of the parties. The Appellant was not a part of the decision
making process. In the said meeting as per clause (7), it was
decided that “M/s RPCL agreed that they will apply their full
efforts to complete the project so that it may be completed within
extended completion period, i.e., July’ 07, instead of going for
12
Arbitration/Court of Law.” Correspondences further reflect that
prior to demitting the office, Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE, wrote three
letters, of which two were dated 05.04.2007 and one was dated
25.04.2007, requesting RPCL for implementation of the contract
as per the decision of JSEB. The said correspondence also does
not show any involvement of the Appellant. As alleged, the
agenda dated 08.06.2007 was prepared by the Appellant, wherein
the following instructions were required to be obtained:
“…….Hence instruction may be obtained on:
(i) Appointment of an arbitrator in light of the advice of the
AG Jharkhand.
(ii) Waiver of penalty in light of the advice of the AG,
Jharkhand, and
(iii) Putting the agenda for further time extension incorporating
the condition of approval of revised BQO which could not
be given till date.”
11. On perusal of the JSEB Board meeting dated 06.02.2007
and 07.02.2007, it is clear that extension was granted up to July
2007 instead of going in for arbitration or approaching the Court
of Law. The JSEB and its members were not inclined to cancel
the contract and the decision was taken by mutual consent.
Therefore, the instructions sought by the Appellant as per the
agenda dated 08.06.2007, were either based on the advice of the
learned AG of Jharkhand or in furtherance of the previous
13
decision of the Board. Later, it was directed that JSEB, Member
Technical may constitute a committee consisting of officers from
‘Technical’, ‘Finance’ and ‘Law’ to suggest the names to appoint
an Arbitrator, after approval of the Chairman. The Member
Technical proceeded in the matter of appointment of Arbitrator
and three names were proposed on 09.08.2007, out of which, Mr.
Ramayan Pandey, ExLaw Secretary, State of Jharkhand was
appointed as an arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an interim
award on 25.11.2007, in favour of RPCL.
12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparent
that at the time of taking a decision by the JSEB on 06.02.2007
and 07.02.2007, the Appellant was neither involved nor was part
in the proposal or the decisionmaking process. He had prepared
the proposed agenda for instructions on 08.06.2007, in
furtherance of clause (7) of the aforesaid Board meeting, and
based on the advice of the learned AG, State of Jharkhand in the
matter of appointment of an Arbitrator and waiver of penalty, as
suggested. Even after the proposed agenda for termination of the
contract dated 27.12.2006, prepared by the then CE Mr. R.P.
Agarwal, it was not acted upon because Member Technical on
14
19.01.2007, had put up a note “Please discuss” . Later, the Board
took a decision on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007. Thus, it is clear
that the question of termination of contract in the opinion of the
Board was dropped and the recourse to complete the work within
the extended time was agreed in place of going in for
arbitration/Court of Law. The same has also been observed by
the High Court in its order dated 02.05.2016, while granting bail
to the Appellant on merit. In the said facts, merely preparing a
subsequent agenda dated 08.06.2007, seeking instructions for
appointment of an Arbitrator would not bring the Appellant
within the purview of culpability for commission of the alleged
offences. This Court has reason to believe that the decisions, if
any, taken by the JSEB and other higher officials were after
perusal of the complete noting in the file. After implementation of
the said decision, arbitral proceedings were commenced and
award dated 25.11.2007 was passed. Thereafter, the agenda
regarding implementation of the award was put up before the
Chairman, Mr. B.M. Verma who vide noting dated 27.01.2008,
made a request to the AG to give legal opinion about the
maintainability and enforceability issues relating to the interim
award. The learned AG responded by letter dated 31.01.2008,
15
opining that the award did not suffer from any illegality and
should be implemented. Accordingly, the Board of JSEB
approved the interim arbitral award vide resolution dated
05.04.2008 and 07.04.2008. In the said meeting, Smt. Rajbala
Verma (then Finance Secretary to the State of Jharkhand) also
participated and duly approved the resolution.
13. The perusal of material indicates that because it was
difficult for the JSEB to implement the award due to financial
difficulty, a roving and fishing enquiry was conducted, in
consequence of which, Secretary, JSEB vide letter dated
30.07.2010 and Smt. Rajbala Verma (then Vigilance
Commissioner) vide letter dated 03.09.2010, requested the DGP,
Vigilance Bureau to register an FIR against the Appellant. We fail
to understand as to why the same person, who had approved the
implementation of award as a member of the Board, had later as
Vigilance Commissioner, recommended initiation of prosecution
against the Appellant, who had merely prepared the agenda for
appointment of an arbitrator and had nothing to do with the
approval of the award and payment of money. In view of the
aforesaid, if at all any culpability had to be assigned, it should
16
have been assigned after examining the role of senior authorities
who were involved in the decisionmaking process. Astonishingly,
most of the senior officials, who approved various decisions
regarding extension of time, appointment of arbitrator and
implementation of arbitration award and consequent payment to
RPCL have not been arrayed as accused. In our considered view,
primafacie there is nothing which affixes culpability or
constitutes commission of offence including on the part
mensrea
of the Appellant. It seems that an attempt has been made to
implicate the Appellant for the decisions in which primafacie, he
did not have any role to play, nor do his acts establish any
culpability regarding the alleged offences.
14. If at all there were issues with respect to the maintainability
of the award due to the provisions of the contract, particularly as
per the contended negative covenant, the same should have been
highlighted by the learned AG, especially when his opinion was
expressly sought. We find it difficult to accept that the opinion of
the learned AG was prejudiced merely because he was not made
aware of the negative covenant pertaining to price variation by an
engineer of the JSEB who has limited exposure in the domain of
17
law. We have no hesitation in stating that AG being the highest
law officer of a State, is competent to advise the State on legal
matters after due diligence, taking into consideration all relevant
factors and material. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be said to
influence or impact the opinion of the learned AG which had
resulted in approval of JSEB to implement the award. Hence, in
our considered view, it cannot be inferred that the Appellant led
the AG and the JSEB to implement the award with fraudulent or
dishonest intention to cause loss to JSEB and benefit to RPCL.
15. On a perusal of the FIR, we find that it is alleged against
Umesh Kumar, Financial Controller – III and the present
Appellant, CE (APDRP), that they made payment of
Rs.4,89,24,788/ against the gross value of Rs. 7,89,84,826/, as
per the arbitral award without approval of the competent
authority. Mr. Umesh Kumar had filed quashment petition being
‘Cr. M.P. No. 2136/2015’ before the High Court wherein the
Court on the allegation of payment without approval of the
competent authority (as alleged against Appellant also) has
observed as under:
“1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the records, I do find that nothing is there against the
18
petitioner with respect to appointment of M/s RPCL nor
anything is there in the matter of appointment of an
Arbitrator. Only when award was given by the Arbitrator, the
petitioner did make payment of the amount which had been
awarded not from the working fund but from the loan fund.
This has been taken by the Vigilance to be illegal as
according to it the payment should not have been made from
the existing loan amount, as the loan had never been taken
for the purpose of making payment of the amount awarded
by the Arbitrator. This accusation cannot be the subject
matter of the prosecution in absence of anything being placed
that there was restriction on the part of the authority of the
Board to make payment of the amount covered under the
award passed against the Board from the loan account. It is
opinion of the Vigilance not based on any circular or
guideline that the payment should have been made after
having a fresh loan from the Power Finance Corporation. It
be stated that the petitioner is to act according to his own
wisdom and not as per the wishes of others and if nothing is
there showing any culpability in the matter of payment of the
amount, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any
wrong.
2. Coming further, it be stated that the petitioner passed
release order with respect to payment of a sum of Rs.
4,89,24,788/ but that release order was passed without
having any approval of the Chairman though such post facto
approval according to the petitioner has been granted by the
Chairman not on the file but on separate sheet which
according to the Vigilance is bad but even if this irregularity
is there in the matter of payment of the said amount, his
culpability can only be found when something is more there
showing his connivance or conspiracy with the contractor
though the Vigilance has tried to establish that the file moved
so fast but that never indicates about the culpability of the
petitioner, as there may be conspiracy of other officials with
the contractor on account of which the file moved so fast.
Furthermore, it has never been the case of the vigilance that
the aforesaid payments were made without the materials
being supplied or short supplied.
19
3. Further, it be stated that the ingredients of the offence of
criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement
between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the
said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for
doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be
illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is
an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can
be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience
that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.
Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the
occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused. Even, if some acts are proved to
have been committed, it must be clear that they were so
committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the
accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy.
Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the
guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are
incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other
words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have
been established on mere suspicion and surmises or
inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable
evidence. This proposition of law has been laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Central Bureau of
Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao {(2012) 9
SCC 512}. Here in the instant case, nothing appears to be
there for showing connivance or conspiracy except aforesaid
two facts which have been dealt with hereinabove regarding
payment of the amount to the contractor.”
16. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against
Umesh Kumar with the above said observations. Assailing the
same, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4062 of 2017, was
filed by the State of Jharkhand, which was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 05.02.2020, after condoning the delay. As
20
per the FIR allegations, it is alleged that Umesh Kumar and the
present Appellant had made the payment of Rs.4,89,24,788/
against the gross value of Rs.7,89,84,826/ without approval of
the competent authority. In this regard, the allegation against the
Appellant is that he suggested that part payment of the arbitral
award may be made to RPCL from the working fund, on
refundable basis since there was no fund available in the Power
Finance Corporation Account. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the Appellant had made payment to the agency.
However, it can be inferred that the Appellant has suggested the
possible mode of payment in furtherance of the Board’s office
order no. 243 dated 16.03.2006, after passing of the arbitral
award which was required to be paid alongwith interest, but to
satisfy the award by noting, the said suggestion was made. In our
view, this itself is not sufficient to implicate the Appellant. In
addition thereto, it is most pertinent that even on such a
suggestion, the payments were not made from the working fund,
rather, part payment of the award was made from the loan taken
from Power Finance Corporation on the recommendation of
Umesh Kumar, against whom criminal proceedings have been
21
quashed as indicated hereinabove and the said order has not
been interfered with by this Court.
17. It is also worthwhile to mention that during the
investigation, no incriminating material or money was seized
from the house of the Appellant. Further, it is not a case where
allegations of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets have
been successfully found by prosecution against the Appellant. On
the contrary, when the Income Tax Department had assessed the
block income tax return for seven years, the Department
recorded a refund Rs.8843 to the Appellant after detailed
scrutiny of the records.
18. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it’s
judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was
possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of enquiry and has
to see whether any primafacie case against the accused is made
out or not. At the same time, the Court is also not expected to
mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the broad
22
probabilities of the case, weight of primafacie evidence,
documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. In this regard
the judgment of
“ Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal,
(1979) 3 SCC 4” can be profitably referred for ready reference.
Having due regard to the documents placed before us and in the
light of the submissions and discussion made above, we are of
the considered view that sufficient grounds casting a grave
suspicion on the Appellant, do not exist. It is observed that the
ingredients of alleged offences cannot be primafacie established
against the Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with
funds of JSEB nor he had fraudulently or dishonestly deceived
senior officials of the JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL or any
wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of illegal gratification or
disproportionate assets has been found against the Appellant.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the High Court erred in refusing to exercise the
revisional powers vested in it under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Cr.P.C. and dismissing the criminal revision preferred by the
Appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case as
discussed, the inescapable conclusion that can be drawn in this
23
case that ingredients of the alleged offences are not primafacie
made out against the Appellant. Therefore, we deem it fit to allow
the instant appeal and setaside the impugned order.
Consequently, the Appellant is discharged in the criminal
proceedings arising out of Special Case No.02 of 2011.
……………………..CJI.
[N.V. Ramana]
………………………..J.
[J.K. Maheshwari]
………………………..J.
[Hima Kohli]
New Delhi;
August 24, 2022
24