SUNIL MEHTA AND ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. INSC 260
Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat [1]
FACTS
Sunil Mehta and another appellant were accused of offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . A complaint was filed by the respondent company before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. After examination, the Magistrate ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
However, the Magistrate who was dissatisfied with the police inquiry suo moto undertook a Magistrate’s Inquiry and issued process against the appellants under the IPC. The complainant stated during the trial under Section 244 CrPC that the evidence in the complaint could be considered sufficient to frame charges. The Magistrate framed charges based on this evidence.
The appellants filed a revision application, which was allowed, remitting the matter to the trial court with directions to proceed per law. However, the High Court overturned this decision, observing that the complainant’s evidence had already been recorded, and the accused had not exercised their right to cross-examine.
The High Court ruled that the procedure was properly followed. Aggrieved, the appellants moved to the Supreme Court, contesting the High Court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether depositions recorded by a Magistrate under Chapter XV of the CrPC before taking cognizance of an offense can constitute evidence for framing charges under Chapter XIX?
HOLDING
No, depositions recorded under Chapter XV of the CrPC cannot constitute evidence for framing charges under Chapter XIX. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s decision, and restored the Sessions Judge’s order. Costs of ₹50,000 were imposed on the respondent company.
1. The Court emphasized that evidence under Sections 244, 245, and 246 CrPC must comply with the Evidence Act, 1872, which includes providing the accused an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
2. The Court distinguished between Chapter XV and Chapter XIX . Evidence recorded under Chapter XV does not fulfill the requirements of evidence for trial purposes under Chapter XIX.
3. The accused’s right to cross-examine witnesses before charges are framed is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial. Allowing charges based on untested evidence would contravene principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
4.The Court relied on its earlier rulings, including Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, 14 SCC 115, to assert that charges must be framed only on evidence presented under Section 244, after giving the accused an opportunity for cross-examination.
- [2] Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, 9 SCC 209