Section 239 CrPC: Court Can Only Look Into Prima Facie Case & Decide Whether Prosecution Case Is Groundless: Supreme Court

Case Title: 
State Vs R Soundirarasu

Date of Order: 
September 5, 2022

Bench: 
Dinesh Maheswari
JB Pardiwala

Parties:
Petitioners- State
Respondents- R Soundirarasu

SUBJECT

The appeal was made by the State of Tamil Nadu against two judgements and orders passed by the Madras High Court that allowed criminal revision applications, as preferred by the respondents in this case, who were the original accused persons. The judgements passed by the High Court discharged all prosecution against them, from charges under Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 of IPC. In this judgement, the Supreme Court went into details of Section 239 of CrPC, and considerations given to the accused under this Section. Test to be applied while determining whether charges were groundless, were also stated in detail by the Court. This judgement heard appeals against both orders of the Madras High Court together, as the issues raised in both were the same. Leave was granted by the Court. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This Section stated that the prosecution had to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income”. However, it was for the accused to provide with a satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate money/assets in his hands. 
• Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This Section was regarding the discharge of all charges levied against the accused, if they are found not to constitute any offence. The Court need not undertake a detailed evaluation of the materials at this stage. The only consideration at this stage was to determine whether the allegation/charge is groundless. The word "groundless" would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever.
• Section 397-401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This Section was regarding the revisional power of the Court. It was held that this power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct a manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. 

OVERVIEW

• The respondents, in this case, were a husband and wife namely, R.Soundiraraju and Suguna, who were Motor Vehicle Inspector at Namakkal, and partner in a partnership firm who later became sole proprietor of it, respectively. It was said that Suguna had been paying her IT returns from 1990 onwards, which were being looked into by the IT Department.
• An FIR was filed against Soundirarasu on 19.09.2005, which found him to be in possession of various assets in the names of him, his wife, his father-in-law, and his minor son, which were worth more than his known sources of income. The FIR contained detailed information and the worth of all assets he owned, which were in the forms of houses, land, gold, etc. Therefore, it was accused that Soundirarju acquired such property in the names of his close ones, by means of benami transactions. 
• It was found that there was expenditure more than the total income and savings of him and his family. As Soundiraraju was a public servant, he was found to be punishable under Section 13 (2) and 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, for criminal misconduct.
• A letter asking for explanation was sent by the investigation officer to Soundiraraju, to which he replied, submitting the income tax returns filed by his wife from 1990 and those of the partnership firm she worked in too.In due course, the role of his wife Suguna was also surfaced as an abettor to charges levied against him. 
• The investigating agency filed a chargesheet against them before the Court of the Special Judge, Salem, against which the respondents submitted applications under Section 239, CrPC on grounds that there were no prima facie cases against them. However, the Court of the Special Judge rejected these applications stating that the petition filed by Suguna was premature in nature, as the facts in the case could only be determined upon after a proper trial based on evidence submitted. The Court after going through the submitted evidence of both parties, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case under the charges levied do stand against Soundiraraju, as he has failed to contend that properties in his name and of his minor son, were not acquired using means out of his disclosed sources of income. 
• Thus the appeals filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Court of Special Judge, Salem and it was held that the materials submitted along with the FIR against them prima facie disclosed sufficient materials for charges under Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (e) to be levied against them. 
• Following this, the respondents filed Criminal Revision Applications before the Madras High Court, which were heard and judged together. The Court went into detail regarding the principle that the accused was innocent until proven guilty and he was to be given the benefit of reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, this burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and it should be proven beyond doubt. In this case, the prosecution had failed to do so. 
• The Court put to use its powers under Section 397 of CrPC which gave it supervisory power to rectify any miscarriage of justice. If there was illegality in an order passed by the lower court, this power of the High Court could be used. Using its powers under Section 401 of CrPC, the Court exercised its powers as an Appellate Court in order to prevent miscarriage of justice on grounds listed under this Section.
• Thus, the Court dismissed prosecution against them on grounds that, they have disclosed all necessary sources of income, and the Investigating Officer has not given these sources due consideration. There was no prima facie case standing against them. The Criminal Revision Applications filed by the respondents were allowed. 
• Thus this application was filed before the Supreme Court as the State was aggrieved and dissatisfied of the High Court order.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the High Court has erred in its judgement and whether the interpretation made by the Court, of Section 239 has taken the true scope and ambit of the Section into account?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The Additional Advocate General appearing for the State argued that the High Court judgement had taken a wrong approach, especially in the finding that the prosecution bears the burden of proof in proving charges against the accused, even at the stage of framing charges. 
• The documents submitted by the respondents at the time of framing charges against them were not necessary to be looked into, at the time of framing charges against them. At the stage of looking into the matter as to whether or not to discharge an application, the Court was not expected to hold that the materials submitted were sufficient to not warrant the conviction of the accused.  
• Thus the counsel appearing for the State prayed that the appeals made by the State be allowed and the High Court orders be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents argued that there was no illegality in the order passed by the High Court discharging them from prosecution. 
• It was submitted that the Investigating Officer had failed to consider the explanations given by Soundiraraju which proves that Suguna had sufficient independent income for which she also pays tax, and there was no reason as to why property under her name had to be clubbed with that of her husband. Thus the report submitted by the Investigating Officer stating that Suguna and her father had no source of income was erroneous. The calculations made by the Investigation Officer were alleged to be false and that the submitted assets acquired by Soundiraraju were proportionate to his income. Thus the finding of the High Court that the prosecution has not rightly analysed materials submitted by the respondents was rightly arrived at.
• Thus, the respondents prayed that there was no merit in the appeals made by the State and the same be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The Court analysed Section 13 of CrPC to define the expression ‘known sources of income’. This meant income from any lawful source and the receipt of the same to be intimated by the public servant according rules and procedures he was expected to follow.   This also meant sources known to the prosecution, and not those known to the accused. The Court also explained what was meant by “for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account”. It was analysed that this meant that the onus to “satisfactorily explain” and account for the assets in his possession, were on the accused.  
• As to the argument put forward by the respondents that the Investigating Officer failed to consider the explanations they offered, the Court emphasised that the Officer’s authority was only to collect all materials available and submit a chargesheet in the Court, and not to decide upon its satisfactoriness.
• The contention that all IT returns of Suguna had been submitted and these would be sufficient to discharge charges against them, was also found to be meritless. Because they were only evidence to be evaluated along with other materials submitted and they alone would not conclusively prove or disprove any charges against the accused.
• The Court further observed that the High Court has committed a severe misconception of law, by wrongly comprehending Section 239. The first step of framing a charge against an accused was determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The grounds for discharging the accused were listed. 
• In the stage of framing charges, the Court was to form an opinion on the facts constituting the alleged offence and not go further deep into the materials that have been submitted on record. The materials brought about by the prosecution are to be considered true at that stage. In this stage, what the Court is only required to do is to consider whether there was sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, that is to presume that the accused might have committed the offence. Other than that, at this stage the Court was not to decide upon the falsity or truthfulness of materials submitted. This was so that the Court can decide whether the charges can be concluded as ‘groundless’. If no prima facie case regarding the commission of an offence could be made out, the charges would be considered ‘groundless’.
• For a charge to be proven ‘groundless’ it should be found that the charges cannot constitute an offence for a case to be charged. That is the Court has to consider whether, if the materials submitted by the prosecution, if unrebutted, make out any case at all. It is at this stage that Section 239 is to be applied.
• It was also stated that Section 239 was to be read and practiced along with Section 240. That is if found that prima facie an offence stands against the accused, further proceedings were to be carried out according to Section 240.  
• It was held that the revisional powers of the High Court were not the same as appellate power. It can only be exercised in such a situation wherein an error of procedure or law would manifest injustice. 

CONCLUSION

The Court in this judgement threw light upon the ambit and scope of Section 239. It was concluded that the High Court had crossed the parameters of its powers by donning the role of a Chartered Account too in this case. It was also held that Section 13 (1) (e) was a departure taken from the general principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lay on the prosecution. In cases charged under this Section, the onus to provide a satisfactory explanation was with the accused. Even at the stage of framing of charges, under Section 239, this burden of proof does not shift. Thus it was found that the order of the Madras High Court do not stand and ought to be set aside. Both appeals by the State were allowed. However, it was also added that any expression made by the Court in this judgement was not to be taken as evidence or the last expression regarding the innocence or guilt of the accused, that is, the respondents in this case.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement