The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the discharge application of Dilip Bhai in a legal case. The case involved allegations of bribery and conspiracy, with Dilip Bhai being a key figure. The Court’s decision sheds light on the process of evaluating prima facie evidence and the role of the High Court in such matters. This summary delves into the details of the case and the subsequent judicial proceedings.
Facts
- Accused no.3-Tushar Vaghela worked under Mehul Jhaveri.
- R.C. Pagaria paid Rs.3,50,000/- to Kishan Rajwar on instructions of Mehul Jhaveri for Anand Singh Mall.
- Anand Singh Mall received Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- as alleged in the charge sheet.
- Main allegation against accused was involvement in the conspiracy.
- Accused no.1-Mehul Jhaveri instructed Dushyant Mulani regarding payments.
- Telephone conversation between Anand Singh Mall and Jadhav took place.
- Company functioned as a Customs House Agent in Mumbai.
- Expenditure notebook of Mehul Jhaveri had entries against Anand Singh Mall.
- Authorized signatory Mehul Jhaveri paid Rs.58,000/- to Chandubhai Kalal in conspiracy.
- Prima facie evaluation to establish commission of alleged offences against accused.
- Accused sought to be prosecuted under various sections of IPC and PC Act.
- Payment of illegal gratification to Anand Singh Mall was alleged.
- Charge sheet filed on 28th September 2012 with various bribery allegations.
- Money transactions and payments detailed in the notebook entries and evidence.
- Allegations regarding the management and directorship roles of the accused.
- Payments made to clear refund cases of the company’s clients.
- On 8 July 2016, the Special Judge under PC Act rejected the application for discharge made by the respondent.
- The High Court allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent on 29 November 2017 and passed an order of discharge.
- After an order of remand, on 14 February 2020, the High Court again passed an order of discharge.
- On 20 August 2019, this Court passed an order of remand to the High Court as the factual aspects were not properly analyzed.
- By the impugned judgment, the High Court discharged the respondent by setting aside the order of the learned Special Judge.
- The High Court should not have disregarded the intercepted conversation at this stage as submitted.
Also Read: Illegal Search and Seizure Case: Quashing of Complaint and FIR by Supreme Court of India
Arguments
- At the time of framing of charge, the Court is not required to examine and assess the material in detail
- The Court is only required to prima facie evaluate whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused
- Evidence and material produced by the prosecution need not be discussed elaborately during this stage
- Prima facie case made out to proceed against the respondent.
- Respondent not party to any telephonic conversation with Mehul Jhaveri or any other accused.
- In the reply filed to the discharge application, it was stated that the letters DM in the notebook refer to a co-accused, not the respondent.
- Notebook does not contain entries made or maintained by the respondent.
- High Court examined the charge sheet to determine prima facie case against the respondent and did not exceed its limits.
- Learned senior counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.
- No reason presented to overturn the well-reasoned decision of the High Court considering all relevant material from the charge sheet.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Case: Supreme Court Ruling in Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi & C.N. Rangaraju
Analysis
- The High Court and Supreme Court’s observations are limited to the role ascribed to Dilip Bhai.
- No specific details of the alleged conspiracy were provided in the charge sheet against Dilip Bhai.
- The charge sheet does not contain allegations connecting Dilip Bhai to the payments in question.
- The prosecution did not rely on any telephonic conversations involving Dilip Bhai.
- The appellant clarified that ‘DM’ referred to Dushyant Mulani, not Dilip Mulani.
- No witness stated that ‘DM’ referred to Dilip Bhai instead of Dushyant Mulani.
- The entries in Mehul Jhaveri’s diary also reference Dushyant Mulani.
- Dilip Bhai was discharged as a prima facie case of involvement was not established.
- The allegation of Dilip Bhai abetting bribery was not substantiated with evidence in the charge sheet.
Also Read: Child Custody Case: Ensuring Welfare and Best Interests
Decision
- Appeal dismissed
- Original names used
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. DILIP MULANI (2024 INSC 712)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-003863-003863 – 2024
