Special Leave Petn. (Cri.) No. 593 of 1999. Case: State of M.P Vs Mohan Lal Soni. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Special Leave Petn. (Cri.) No. 593 of 1999 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sushila Shukla, Uma Nath Singh, Advocates and For Respondents: Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Advocate, Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate |
| Judges | S. Rajendra Babu And Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedue Code - Sections 173(5), 228; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(e); Indian Penal Code - Section 120(B) |
| Citation | AIR 2000 SC 2583, 2000 CriLJ 3504, AIR 2000 SCW 2674, 2000 (3) AllCriLR 771, 2000 (29) AllCriR 2123, 2000 AllMR 1570 (Cri), 2000 (2) AndhLT 192 (Cri), 2000 (3) BLJ 684, 2000 (3) ChandCriC 1, 2000 (2) ChandLR 426(Cri), 2000 CriLR 603 (SC), 2000 CriLR 603 (SC), 2000 (3) Crimes 105, 2000 (3) CurCriR 86, 2000 (3) EastCriC 945, JT 2000 (8) 333, 2001 Mad |
| Judgement Date | July 19, 2000 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
-
This petition is by the State of Madhya Pradesh directed against the order dated 10-11-1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 274/98 by which the charges framed against the respondent under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') were quashed.
-
The relevant and necessary facts to dispose of this petition are:
The respondent was working as a Road Transport Inspector in the Regional Office of the Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and is a public servant as such. A complaint under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act for the check period 25-9-1982 to 27-3-1993 was filed stating that he had acquired the property in excess of the known source of his income. During the investigation properties and assets belonging to his mother-in-law, father, brother and nephew were shown as assets of the respondent. The assets of his wife, who is an income-tax payer and a self-earning member, were also connected with the assets of the respondent. While submitting charge-sheet several important documents, which were collected during the course of investigation, were withheld. According to the respondent the said documents supported him. If those documents were considered even prima facie there was no scope to frame charges against him. At the time of framing charges the respondent made an application seeking production of these documents in Court before proceeding to frame charge. But the said application was rejected stating that for the purpose of framing charges only the documents forwarded to the Court under Section 173(5), Cr. P. C. need to be considered. Hence he filed Criminal Revision No. 337/97 in the High Court. The said Revision Petition was disposed of by the order dated 8-9-1997 in the following terms:-
In the result the revision is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that the documents made available by the accused during investigation be produced and may be taken into consideration by the Court below while framing the charge.
-
Thereafter the trial Court framed charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-4-1988 framing charges in the Special Case No. 26/96 by the Special Judge, Indore, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 274/98. The High Court by order dated 10-11-1998 accepted the case of the respondent, set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Indore, framing charges and discharged the respondent. In these circumstances the State has come up in this petition challenging the said order of the High Court.
-
The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that at the stage of framing charges for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act the trial Judge was not required to consider documents like income-tax return and income-tax orders and calculation chart of the accounts; the documents like income-tax assessment orders and calculation chart submitted by the respondent ought not to have been accepted at the stage of framing charges without proving them and that those documents could be proved during trial by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed by Subordinate Court) No. 599 of 2014. Case: Mansukhbhai Vs State of Gujarat. High Court of Gujarat (India)
......, FIR was lodged against Mitesh, Bhavesh, Soni and 3-4 other persons. So far as cause of quarrel ...(7) AIR 2000 SC 2583: State of M.P. vs. Mohan Lal Soni-. The Court while referring to several ...A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if on the basis of materials ...(9) AIR 1999 SC 3845: 1999 AIR SCW 3921: State of U.P. V/s. ......
-
Cri. Revn. Case No. 611 of 2009. Case: Nischint Constructions and Ors. Vs Dr. Pasumarthi S. N. Murthy and Anr.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 12. In State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni AIR 2000 SC 2583: 2000 Cri LJ 3504, the Supreme Court, referring to several previous decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the sta......
-
Crl. R.P. No. 200063/2014. Case: Tulsiram Vs The State. High Court of Karnataka (India)
...materials on record and what is the duty of the Court while dealing with the application u/S 239 of Cr.P.C. In a decision reported in 2000 (6) SCC 338 (State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in the following At the stage of framing charges the Court has to prim......
-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 982 of 1998, 33 of 1999, Criminal Revision Nos. 1318, 1319 of 2007, Criminal Original Petition Nos. 26062 & 26063 of 2007. Case: State and Ors. Vs Hassan Kutti Haji and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...itself. Therefore, High Court rightly excluded house from the assets of the respondent. (d) in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [2000 (6) SCC 338], it has been held 6.... All these documents pertain to the period prior to 26- 3-1993. Some of them even relate to the year 1988. In the normal co......
-
Cri. Revn. Case No. 611 of 2009. Case: Nischint Constructions and Ors. Vs Dr. Pasumarthi S. N. Murthy and Anr.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 12. In State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni AIR 2000 SC 2583: 2000 Cri LJ 3504, the Supreme Court, referring to several previous decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the sta......
-
Crl. R.P. No. 200063/2014. Case: Tulsiram Vs The State. High Court of Karnataka (India)
...materials on record and what is the duty of the Court while dealing with the application u/S 239 of Cr.P.C. In a decision reported in 2000 (6) SCC 338 (State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in the following At the stage of framing charges the Court has to prim......
-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 982 of 1998, 33 of 1999, Criminal Revision Nos. 1318, 1319 of 2007, Criminal Original Petition Nos. 26062 & 26063 of 2007. Case: State and Ors. Vs Hassan Kutti Haji and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...itself. Therefore, High Court rightly excluded house from the assets of the respondent. (d) in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [2000 (6) SCC 338], it has been held 6.... All these documents pertain to the period prior to 26- 3-1993. Some of them even relate to the year 1988. In the normal co......
-
Crl. Rev. P. 832/2006 and Crl. M.C. 7311-15/2006. Case: 1. Jitender Nath, 2. Rajneesh Goenka and Ors. Vs 1. Ram Phal Bansal and Anr., 2. State and Anr.. High Court of Delhi (India)
...appreciate whether it is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. For this proposition, he relies State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni 2000 CriLJ 3504. The Court has only to examine and be satisfied that the prima facie case is made out for proceeding further at the stage of framing of char......