In the Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal 407 of 2021
Decided on 13 April, 2021
Appellant: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kashyap
Bench: Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice M. R. Shah
Introduction
The case State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap is about an appeal that is filed by the State because the Rajasthan High Court had cancelled the charges which were framed against the accused, who was a Patwari. He was accused for asking a bribe, which is crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court had used their power of revision and discharged the accused, but the Supreme Court has found that the High Court had gone beyond its powers by doing such action. The Supreme Court also find out that whether it was right for the High Court to cancel the charges at such an early stage. The Supreme Court clearly said that the courts should not examine the full evidence or an act like they are conducting a full trial when deciding about framing charges. This stage is only meant to look upon if there is enough material to move forward with the trial, rather than not to decide directly whether the accused is guilty or not.
Facts
Ashok Kumar Kashyap, the accused in this case, worked as a Patwari that is Public Servant in the state of Rajasthan. A man named Jai Kishore filed a complaint, on 31st August 2010 with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Bharatpur. He claimed that Ashok Kumar Kashyap had demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,800 to continue the process of an application for a domicile and OBC certificate of his son. As per the complainant, all the necessary documents for an application were already submitted and completed.
Following this complaint, the ACB had began an investigation. After collecting some evidence, like a recorded conversation between the complainant and accused, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Ashok Kumar Kashyap under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This section particularly deals with public servants who accept illegal gratification that is bribes for doing any official work. The Special Judge has reviewed the charge sheet and supporting evidence, such as transcript of the recorded conversation, and concluded that there was enough prima facie evidence to move forward with a trial. Thus, the charges were framed against the accused.
Although, Ashok Kumar Kashyap did not accept this decision by the Special Judge and filed a Criminal Revision Petition (No. 1270 of 2018) in the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had accepted his request, dismissed the order of the Special Judge, and discharged him from the charges. The High Court also observed that the transcript did not clearly show a demand for a bribe by an accused, and also noticed that there was no pending official work with an accused at that time. Unsatisfied with this decision, the State of Rajasthan had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, arguing for the High Court wrongfully interfered with the charge framing stage of the criminal case.
Issues
- Whether the material evidences were examined efficiently to apply Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
- Whether the cancellation of charges by the High Court of Rajasthan was evident and based on investigation and examination of evidences?
Appellant’s Contention
The State argued that the High Court had made a mistake by cancelling the charges after examining the evidence in detail. Further it was stated that the stage of framing charges or deciding whether to discharge someone under Sections 227 and Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court should not go into the depth of an evidence and simply consider the defence version.
According to the State, the conversation transcript submitted by the complainant clearly shows that the accused asked for a bribe of Rs. 2,800. The Special Judge had correctly found enough basic evidence to move forward with the trial and had correctly framed the charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The State referred to the Supreme Court judgement of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (2010), which lays down that at this early stage, the courts should only check either the necessary elements of the crime appear are on the record or not. They should not go into a detailed study of an evidence and consider the defence.
The State also pointed out that even though the accused was not caught taking the bribe from the complainant, the act of demanding a bribe itself is enough to be punished under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even an attempt or the request for illegal money by a public servant is a crime.
Respondent’s Contention
The accused claimed that the conversation transcript does not shows that he had asked for any kind of bribe of Rs. 2,800. Instead of that, he had refused to give a fake domicile certificate and caste certificate because Mr. Jai Kishore was actually a resident of Agra, and not the State of Rajasthan.
The respondent also pointed out that he had already rejected the application of the complainant on 29th August 2010, that was exactly two days before the complaint was made. So, there was no official work pending, and also no reason for him to demand any kind of bribe. The trap operation was also failed, as the accused never accepted any money. So, according to the accused, no offence was committed.
The accused referred to the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002), where the Supreme Court said that the charges should only be framed if there is strong suspicion that accused had committed the crime. If the evidence only raises the minor doubts and not serious suspicion, then the person should directly be discharged. Relied on this, the accused said the High Court was right in checking whether the evidence really showed even a basic case for continue with trial or not.
Rationale
At the stage of framing charges or deciding to discharge the accused under Sections 227 and Section 239 of the CrPC, the court has a very limited role. Conducting a detailed inquiry simply assume that the prosecution’s evidence is true and check whether there is enough material to suggest a prima facie case. This principle has been decided in the past judgment of State of Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019), the case state that detailed analysis or consideration of the evidence is not permitted at this early stage. In the present case of Public Servant, the Special Judge had rightly examined the transcript of a recorded conversation of the accused and found sufficient evidence to suggest that the accused had demanded a bribe. As per Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even an attempt to solicit a bribe is punishable and actual acceptance is not necessary.
However, the High Court went beyond its authority by closely examining the evidence and assessing the likelihood of conviction, which is not allowed at the charge framing stage and amounts to conducting a mini-trial. The accused’s arguments, such as the claim that the application was already rejected or that the complainant sought a false certificate, were also considered too early. The Supreme Court further clarifies that such defences should only be raised and tested during the full trial, not at such preliminary stage. Furthermore, the fact that the trap was failed and the accused was not caught accepting any kind of bribe does not weaken the case, as the law clearly states that simply demanding bribe is enough to constitute an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Defects of Law
- The High Court was only supposed to check if the lower court followed the law properly, not to go into the facts of the case in detail. But instead, it went too far by re-checking all the evidence and transcripts like an appeal court. This is not allowed under revisional powers, which are meant to be limited and supervisory.
- At the stage of framing charges or considering discharge, the court should only see if there’s enough basic evidence to go ahead with the trial. However, the High Court closely examined the transcript and tried to decide whether a bribe was actually demanded, which is not the right approach at this stage.
- Section 7 punishes not only taking bribes but also asking for or trying to get a bribe, even if no money is actually exchanged. The High Court focused only on the fact that no money was taken and that no file was pending, ignoring that even asking for a bribe is a crime under the law.
- The law says that if there is strong suspicion and two possible views, the case should go to trial. But here, the High Court chose to side with the accused and discharged him even though the trial court found enough reason to go forward with the trial. This goes against settled legal principles.
- The High Court acted as if it was already holding a full trial. It looked at the accused’s defence, the background of the case, and even tried to judge the accused’s intention. But at the charge-framing stage, courts should not do all this. It’s only meant to check if there’s a basic case to proceed, not to decide who is right or wrong.
Inference
The Supreme Court had clarified that at the stage of framing charges or deciding on discharge, the court’s role is only to see whether there is enough basic evidence from the prosecution to move forward with the trial. The court should not go into a detailed examination of the evidence or consider accused’s defence at the time of framing charges, as it is not meant to be a mini-trial.
Further, the Supreme Court found that the Rajasthan High Court made a legal mistake by examining the recorded conversation and interpreting decision in favour of the accused. This power was beyond what the High Court is allowed to vest while using its revisional powers under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Special Judge had correctly found that there was a clear case of demanding a bribe under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to law, even if the bribe was not accepted, simply demanding it or trying to get illegal payment is enough to be punished under Section 7.
Because of this, the Supreme Court had cancelled the High Court’s order that discharged the accused. It restored the original order that was passed by the Special Judge and directed that the trial should be continued.
Judgement
On 22 June 2018, the Special Judge had framed charges against the accused Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the accused had filed a revision application in the Rajasthan High Court, which lead to cancellation of the Special Judge’s order and discharged the accused from the case.
The Supreme Court later ruled that the High Court had vested beyond its powers by doing this. It said that the High Court has misused its revisional powers and acted outside their limits of Sections 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court also noted down that the High Court had wrongly examined the conversation transcript. At the stage of framing charges, the court is not supposed to conduct the deep analysis of the evidence.
Therefore, the Supreme Court had set aside the High Court’s order and restored the order of the Special Judge. The accused will now face trial for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Conclusion
In this case, the charges were supposed to be framed after the hearing. However, the High Court went too far by examining the evidence at this early stage, regarding which the Supreme Court said is not allowed. This early and detailed review was acted like a mini-trial, which should not happen during the stage of charges framing.
Due to this, the evidence specially the transcript was not properly revised, which further leads to a wrong decision by the Rajasthan High Court. The Supreme Court had found this to be a mistake and decided to reverse the High Court’s judgement. It was agreed with the Special Judge’s earlier decision of framing charges and allowed the case to go forward to trial.