AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Mishra, J.
The present petitioner is the wife of the principal accused –Rama Chandra Mohanta (public servant) was involved in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 2016 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109 of I.P.C. The husband of the petitioner was working as VLW-cum-PEO, Jhumpura Block, Keonjhar. He has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Therefore, the Vigilance Department has registered F.I.R. against him and conducted the investigation, which was culminated into the charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. filed on 12.06.2023.
Heard Mr. Bhabani Shankar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.
The F.I.R. was registered on 04.11.2016. It appears from the charge-sheet that the present petitioner, being the wife of the public servant, has sought to explain the assets acquired by her husband in her name and in the names of other family members. It further transpires from the investigation that the petitioner was running a crusher unit under the name and style of M/s. Sri Krishna Stone Crusher as its proprietor and had disclosed the income derived from the said business to justify the assets accumulated by her husband. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet reads as under:-
“Income from Sri Krushna Stone Crusher:-As per IT returns filed by the accused it is found that he has been filling IT returns from the assessment year, 2008-09 to 2011-12 showing his income from business. But he failed to explain what business he was doing during the relevant period. In the contrary it is found that during the assessment year, 2010-11 and 2011-12 his wife has filed the IT returns showing her income from-business and profession when her stone crusher was running. It is not possible in the part of the accused to show the same sources of income from crusher business. Hence the income of the accused as shown in his IT returns was not considered and not taken.
Further it is found that Smt. Sairendri Mahanta, wife of the accused has been running Shree Krushna Stone Crusher unit at Plot No.2708/4582 of village-Ukhunda, PS-Baria, Dist-Keonjhar in her proprietorship which has been registered under Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 having TIN-21163700218 by the DCCT, Keonjhar on 02.06.2011.This stone crusher is meant to manufacture and sell stone metal, stone chips and Bajury. To operate the stone crusher, consent has been granted by the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Keonjhar vide letter No.899,dt. 15.04.2011.
As per the return details of the dealer Smt. Sairendri Mahanta, wife of the accused, supplied by the DCCT, Keonjhar, vide letter No.4786, dt.05.12.2016, it is found that the wife of the accused has been selling the produces from the crusher unit regularly from the assessment year, 2010-11 to 2016-17 and paying VAT of Rs. 1,13,404/- for total sale value of Rs.19,44,489/-.”
It also transpired during the course of investigation that the present petitioner had availed herself of bank loans for the purpose of her business and for the purchase of vehicles, etc. The investigation further revealed that her husband, who is a public servant, had made repayments towards the said loan accounts. In the year 2011, the petitioner had availed a business loan of Rs.28,60,000/- from the State Bank of India, Ukhunda Branch, against which her husband had repaid an amount of Rs.13,47,341/-. Similarly, on 31.10.2010, the petitioner had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.17,21,970/- for purchase of a JCB machine bearing Registration No. OR-09N-5735. Against the outstanding amount of the said loan, her husband appears to have repaid a part of the loan amount. Again, in the year 2015, the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.9,81,337/- for purchase of a Mahindra Tipper, against which also repayments were made by the principal accused i.e. the husband of the petitioner. Similarly, several other transactions have come to light during the course of investigation. However, it is not necessary to elaborate upon all such transactions at this stage.
The prosecution, along with the charge-sheet, relied upon the bank statements, other connected documents and the income-tax returns of the petitioner and her husband. Upon consideration of the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the materials available on record, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar vide impugned order dated 19.05.2026 in V.G.R. Case No.13 of 2016, found prima facie material to hold that accused Rama Chandra Mahanta (public servant) was in possession of disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.96,84,980/-, which he had failed to satisfactorily account for. The learned Special Judge further found prima facie material indicating that the present petitioner had abetted her husband in acquiring the alleged disproportionate assets and putting forth independent defence to justify the ill-gotten assets, of her husband. Accordingly, charges were framed against Rama Chandra Mahanta under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and against the present petitioner under Section 109 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the said Act. For convenience of ready reference, the said order dated 19.05.2026 is reproduced hereunder:-
“Both the accused persons namely Rama Chandra Mahanta and Sairendhri Mahanta are present and filed hazira. Learned Defence Counsel and learned Spl.P.P. are present. Learned Spl.P.P. opened the case by describing the charges brought against the accused persons.
Heard both sides on the point of charge.
Perused the F.I.R., Charge sheet, and other relevant documents available on record and found that accused Rama Chandra Mahanta, Ex-VLW-cum-P.E.O. of Jhumpura Block, District-Keonjhar during the check period from 6.7.1998 to 21.10.2016 had acquired assets worth Rs.1,37,31,225/-, wherein his income and income of his family members from known source was Rs.1,66,07,714/- and expenditure incurred by him was Rs.1,25,61,469/-. As such the accused Rama Chandra Mahanta is found in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.96,84,980/- to his known source of income, which he could not satisfactorily account for. The accused Sairendhri Mahanta is said to have abetted her husband Rama Chandra Mahanta for acquiring the aforesaid disproportionate assets. So there is prima-facie material against the accused Rama Chandra Mahanta to presume that, he has committed the offence U/s.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Hence, charge U/s.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is framed against the accused Rama Chandra Mahanta. The material available on record are also found sufficient to presume that the accused Sairendhri Mahanta has abated her husband to acquire the aforesaid disproportionate assets and she has committed the offence U/s.109 I.P.C. read with section 13(1)(e) punishable u/s. 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Hence charge U/s.109 I.P.C. read with section 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is framed against the accused Sairendhri Mahanta.
The contents of the charges are read over and explained to the accused persons separately to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Learned counsel for the defence did not admit the contents of any documents filed by the prosecution. Learned Spl.P.P. orally submits to issue summons to the C.S. witnesses. Hence issue summons to the C.S. witnesses fixing the case to 22.06.2026 for hearing. Accused persons are as before and directed to remain present on the date fixed.”
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order framing charges against her, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that, on a cumulative consideration of the prosecution case, no material is disclosed to constitute an offence of abetment, much less any conspiracy between the petitioner and her husband, the public servant. He further submitted that the petitioner is independently engaged in business and is an income-tax assessee, and her income, expenditure, profit and loss are duly accounted for and reflected in her income-tax returns. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has selectively relied upon certain transactions to implicate the petitioner, without there being any material to suggest that she, in any manner, abetted her husband in acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was, therefore, contended that any disproportionate assets allegedly acquired by her husband are matters to be explained by him, and the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for her husband's conduct in the absence of specific material constituting abetment on her part. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. E. Swarnalata @ P. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), passed in CRLMC No.2660 of 2023, decided on 13.02.2024, wherein this Court, while considering a similar allegation against the wife of the principal accused in a disproportionate assets case, held that mere ownership or acquisition of assets in the name of the wife, in the absence of material indicating her active participation or instigation, would not by itself constitute abetment under Section 109 of the I.P.C.
Mr. Das further submitted that the learned Special Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in law while considering the question of framing of charge, inasmuch as the Court did not advert to the unimpeachable documentary materials placed by the petitioner demonstrating her independent financial capacity, including Income Tax Returns, bank loan records, business registration documents and records relating to the REGP loan. According to him, even within the limited scrutiny permissible at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to sift the prosecution materials to ascertain whether the foundational ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed and whether the material gives rise to a strong suspicion against the accused, as held in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4. He contended that the failure to consider such indisputable documents has resulted in a mechanical order of charge, thereby warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
In the factual scenario of the present case, the judgment relied upon by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, may not be applicable. In Smt. E. Swarnalata @ P. Swarnalata (supra), this Court held that where the wife does not put forth any independent defence to explain the properties factored into the income of her husband, she cannot be proceeded against with the aid of Section 109 of the I.P.C. In the present case, however, the petitioner herself has put forth a specific defence to explain the properties and transactions factored into her husband's income. Such defence involves questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and, therefore, the same can appropriately be considered and adjudicated upon during trial.
Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the contrary, relied upon several judgments and submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope. It was, therefore, contended that the order framing charges against the petitioner does not call for interference in exercise of such jurisdiction.
It is true that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited. Ordinarily, a well-reasoned order framing charge is not interfered with unless it suffers from patent illegality or manifest error resulting in failure of justice. In the present case, the trial has already commenced and, at this stage, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The above view also receives support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Court authoritatively held that while exercising revisional jurisdiction against an order framing charge, the High Court must exercise great restraint and ordinarily ought not to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence. It was held thus:-
“17.Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the “record of the case” and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code. 18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.”
Upon a careful consideration of the F.I.R., the charge-sheet and the materials accompanying thereto, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has duly applied his mind to the materials available on record and has recorded a satisfaction as to the existence of sufficient prima facie materials warranting the framing of charge and continuation of the proceedings against the accused persons. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation or evaluation of the evidence as would be necessary at the stage of trial. The defence sought to be advanced by the petitioner pertains essentially to the merits of the allegations and the same can be appropriately considered and adjudicated upon only in the course of trial. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to establish such defence by adducing appropriate evidence. At this stage, however, the defence version cannot be subjected to a detailed scrutiny nor can the same furnish a legitimate ground for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with or quash the order framing charge, particularly when the materials available on record disclose the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.