Alleged Disproportionate Income To Be Proved During Trial: Orissa High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Petition U/s. 239 CrPC
The Orissa High Court dismissed a Petition challenging the Order by the Special Court which rejected the Petition under Section 239 of CrPC.
The Orissa High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Petition under Section 239 of CrPC while holding that the alleged disproportionate income of a Party, whether it is from known and lawful source, has to be proved during trial.
The Court dismissed a Petition challenging the Order by the Special Court which rejected the Petition filed by the Petitioners’ under Section 239 of CrPC for discharge. The Bench held that the questions regarding contributions by the Petitioners’ sons and other income sources must be proved during trial in accordance with law.
A Division Bench of Justice SK Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho explained, “At the stage of framing of charge, in rare and exceptional cases, if the accused produces materials before the High Court which is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts and cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution and which are of sterling and impeccable quality or on the basis of admitted documents which would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against him, in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, the High Court even at the stage of section 239 of Cr.P.C. can take into account such materials.”
Senior Advocate Ashok Mohanty appeared for the Petitioners, while Standing Counsel Sangram Das represented the Opposite Party.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners challenged the rejection of their discharge petition, arguing that the assets and expenditure as reflected in the charge sheet were highly inflated. It was alleged that Petitioner No.1, who was the then Additional Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known and lawful sources of income. The Vigilance Department had filed charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act), read with Section 109 of the IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained that under Chapter XIX of the CrPC, the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates is governed by Section 239 of the CrPC, which states that discharge can be granted only when the charge against the accused is groundless.
The Court relied on its decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), wherein it was held “When the allegations are baseless or without foundation and no prima facie case are made out, it would be just and proper to discharge the accused to prevent abuse of process of the Court. If there is no ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, the charges must be considered to be groundless. The ground may be any valid ground including the insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge.”
“Whether the petitioner no.2 had the income from known and lawful sources for which she was filing income tax returns, how much contribution the two sons of the petitioners had made from their salaries for the construction of the house as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners are required to be proved by the petitioners during trial in accordance with law for the appreciation of the trial Court,” the Bench remarked.
Therefore, the Court held that the “trial Court has examined the materials on record carefully and since it was satisfied that prima facie case is made out and it cannot be said that the charge against the two petitioners would be groundless, it has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under section 239 of Cr.P.C.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra & Anr. v. State (Vigilance) [CRLMP No. 1245 of 2024]
