Deepak Surana & Ors. Vs. State of MP
|
Head Note
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 , Section 228
Corruption - Discharge - FIR for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC-Order of discharge passed by Special Court set aside by High Court - Agreements relied upon by the prosecution do not bear the signatures of the appellants - Agreements in question were not even recovered from the custody of the appellants and were recovered from the vendors themselves - Agreements being unilateral and not bearing the signatures of the appellants, mere execution of such agreements cannot be considered as a relevant circumstance against the appellants - There is nothing on record to indicate that the consideration mentioned in the agreement could be traced to the appellants, nor is there any statement by any of the witnesses suggesting even proximity or meeting of minds between the appellants and any of the other accused - The view that weighed with the Special Judge was quite correct - High Court was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge -Material on record completely falls short of and cannot justify framing of charges against the appellants - Order passed by the High Court liable to be set and the order passed by the Special Judge in restored.
Topic(s)-Corruption - Discharge - Evidence falls short. Discharge upheld