Dinesh Dutt Joshi vs State of Rajasthan
(2001) 3 SCC 653
Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Dinesh Dutt Joshi, is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 1200 from Sarup Singh in exchange for providing an electric connection. Following a complaint from Sarup Singh, the police set up a trap, during which Tejpal Singh, acting on the appellant's instructions, accepted the bribe money, which was dusted with phenolphthalein powder.
After the bribe was paid, the police raiding party recovered the money from Tejpal Singh, who admitted that he had received it at the instructions of the appellant. The case was investigated, and the police filed charges against both the appellant and Tejpal Singh for offences under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy.
In the trial court, charges were framed against Tejpal Singh, but the appellant was discharged. Tejpal Singh, dissatisfied with this decision, filed a revision petitionbefore the High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court then invoked its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to set aside the order of discharge for the appellant and directed those charges be framed against him as well under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sections Involved:
• Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(2) - Prevention of Corruption Act
(Offences related to bribery and corruption by public servants)
• Section 120-B - Indian Penal Code (IPC)
(Criminal conspiracy)
• Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
(Inherent powers of the High Court)
Issues in the Case:
• Whether the High Court was correct in exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the trial court's decision to discharge the appellant and to direct that charges be framed against him.
• Whether the appellant should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the High Court passed the order that set aside the trial court’s decision and framed charges against him.
Judgment:
The High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, set aside the trial court’s order which had discharged the appellant and directed those charges be framed against him. The Court emphasized that it could pass such orders to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. It noted that the trial court's discharge of the appellant could result in an abuse of process, and therefore the decision was quashed.
However, the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the High Court passed its order, which led to a contention from the defence counsel. The High Court did not issue notice to the appellant prior to passing the order, which the counsel argued was improper.
The Supreme Court, while not commenting on the merits of the case, held that the High Court erred in not giving notice to the appellant before passing the order. The Court observed that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed order of setting aside the discharge and framing charges against him.
The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to pass appropriate orders after hearing the appellant on the question of framing charges.
-GAYATRI
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY
Comentarios