In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has elucidated the circumstances under which an accused can be discharged under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that if the prosecution's evidence, even if left unchallenged, fails to indicate any culpability on the part of the accused, discharge is warranted.
Case Background
The case involved petitioners Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, a retired Additional Secretary to the Government in the Water Resources Department, and his wife, Soudamini Mishra. They challenged the order dated January 27, 2024, passed by the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar, which had rejected their discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC. The petitioners were charge-sheeted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations stated that during a specified check period, the first petitioner had acquired movable and immovable assets totaling ₹30,30,683.84 in his name and that of his family members. Additionally, he was said to have incurred expenditures amounting to ₹27,50,730.45, bringing the total to ₹57,81,414.00. Against this, his known lawful income was ₹26,12,730.31, leading to accusations of possessing disproportionate assets worth ₹31,68,684.00.
Contentions of the Petitioners
Senior Advocate Asok Mohanty, representing the petitioners, argued that the assets and expenditures cited in the charge-sheet were grossly inflated. He contended that certain salary amounts received by the first petitioner were not accounted for. Furthermore, he highlighted that the second petitioner, being a housewife, had independently acquired assets through her own sources, which were entirely unconnected to the alleged offenses.
Court's Analysis and Findings
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho, reiterated the legal principles governing the discharge of an accused under Section 239 CrPC. The Court observed that if there is no ground to presume that the accused has committed an offense, the charges must be considered groundless. Such grounds may include the insufficiency of evidence to substantiate the charge. The Court further noted that when the materials presented at the time of considering the framing of charges are such that, even if unrebutted, they fail to establish any case against the accused, discharge is justified.
Upon examining the materials on record, the Court found that the assets and expenditures attributed to the petitioners were indeed inflated. It also noted that certain legitimate income sources of the first petitioner had not been considered. Moreover, the Court recognized that the second petitioner had her own independent sources of income, which were unrelated to the alleged offenses.
Conclusion
In light of these findings, the Orissa High Court concluded that the materials produced by the prosecution, even if left unchallenged, did not indicate any culpability on the part of the petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that the charges against them were groundless and allowed the discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted trials when the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. It reinforces the principle that the mere existence of allegations, without substantive supporting evidence, cannot justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against an accused.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.