Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court delivered a detailed and strongly reasoned common order setting aside the discharge granted by the trial court in three connected vigilance prosecutions arising from allegations of corruption and irregularities in the execution of a major public works project. The Court held that the trial court had adopted an impermissibly narrow approach while considering an application for discharge and that the proper test is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, disclose grounds to presume the commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reiterating that “a charge is not an empty formality but a serious judicial act,” the High Court restored the prosecution and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
The Court underscored that discharge at a pre-trial stage must be exercised sparingly and only when the prosecution case is so fundamentally deficient that it would be an abuse of process to proceed. In contrast, the trial court had entered into a mini-evaluation of evidence and had assessed the defence version before trial, which the High Court found legally impermissible. The order further highlights that materials collected by the vigilance department—including official records, sanction orders, inspection notes, and expert assessments—were sufficient to raise a strong presumption that the alleged acts required full trial examination.
Accordingly, the Court allowed all three revision petitions filed by the prosecution, set aside the discharge orders, and restored the charges for trial. It emphasised that the trial must be conducted expeditiously, given that the events date back more than a decade.
Facts
The prosecution case originated from a vigilance enquiry into alleged corruption in the execution of a public works project undertaken by certain public officials and associated contractors. The vigilance department registered a case alleging that the officials responsible for the project’s implementation had permitted deviations from approved plans, over-measured work quantities, certified inflated bills, and caused wrongful loss to the government. The prosecution further alleged that materials used in the project were sub-standard and that there was a conspiracy among the supervisory officials and contractors.
The trial court, however, discharged the accused at the pre-trial stage, holding that the prosecution materials did not establish sufficient grounds to frame a charge. The vigilance department challenged these discharge orders in revision petitions before the High Court, contending that the trial court misapplied the law and adopted a standard of proof that is applicable only after evidence is recorded.
Issues
The primary issue before the Kerala High Court was whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused by conducting a premature evaluation of the evidence and by concluding that the prosecution had not produced materials sufficient to frame a charge. The High Court also examined whether the vigilance investigation—including the inspection reports, measurement books, and sanction orders—constituted adequate prima facie material to establish the statutory presumption required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A further issue was whether the trial court applied the correct legal test for discharge, particularly with respect to the limited judicial scrutiny permissible at the stage of Section 239 and 240 CrPC.
Petitioner’s arguments
The prosecution argued that the trial court’s approach was fundamentally flawed because it assessed the credibility of evidence rather than merely determining the existence of a prima facie case. It was submitted that detailed expert assessments regarding the alleged irregularities, including inflation of measurements and sanction orders verifying the role of the concerned officials, were ignored by the trial court. The prosecution also contended that the trial court had erred in accepting the defence version at the discharge stage, despite clear law that defence documents cannot be evaluated at this stage unless they fall within narrow exceptions.
The prosecution maintained that the vigilance materials disclosed a clear pattern of irregular conduct, suggesting misappropriation of funds, supervisory misconduct, and abuse of official position. It further submitted that the discharge order would have the effect of frustrating a long-pending corruption prosecution involving public revenue.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent argued that the materials placed by the vigilance department lacked evidentiary value and that the alleged deviations in the project were routine procedural matters without criminal intent. It was submitted that the inspection notes were incomplete and that no direct evidence established misappropriation or personal gain. The Respondent further contended that sanction for prosecution was defective, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
The Respondent emphasized that the trial court had carefully examined the prosecution records and found no material sufficient to presume the commission of offences. It was also argued that the prolonged delay in the investigation and the absence of proof of dishonest intention should weigh in favour of sustaining the discharge.
Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Sections 239 and 240 CrPC, holding that discharge is permissible only when the materials, taken at their face value, fail to constitute any offence. The Court emphasised that the judge is not required to determine guilt but only to see whether the prosecution’s case, if unrebutted, would support a charge. The Court observed that the trial court had applied an evidentiary standard close to proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is wholly inappropriate at this preliminary stage.
The Court relied on settled principles governing vigilance prosecutions, including the statutory presumption that arises under Sections 7, 13, and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act when a public servant is shown to have acted in a manner inconsistent with official norms. The Court also clarified the law governing admissibility of defence documents at the discharge stage and noted that the trial court had wrongly evaluated evidentiary contradictions that can only be considered after full trial.
Precedent analysis
The High Court invoked binding principles from landmark Supreme Court judgments that circumscribe the scope of discharge—particularly those holding that the judge cannot conduct a roving inquiry, weigh evidence, or rely on speculative defence theories while framing charges. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that even strong defence arguments cannot justify discharge when prosecution materials disclose a coherent narrative suggesting criminal misconduct. The Court also drew upon earlier judgments dealing with vigilance investigations and corruption cases involving public contracts, reiterating that deviations, inflation of measurements, and approval of sub-standard work constitute material sufficient for trial when supported by expert inspection findings.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the trial court’s reasoning was unsustainable because it effectively conducted a “mini-trial” at the discharge stage. The High Court found that the vigilance materials, including the measurement books, inspection reports, and sanction orders, were sufficient to create a strong presumption of misuse of official position. The Court emphasised that the trial court had ignored the cumulative effect of these documents and erroneously evaluated them in isolation. It also rejected the respondent’s argument on defective sanction, holding that such contentions must be examined at trial after full evidence is recorded.
The Court concluded that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction and frustrated a legitimate public-interest prosecution by discharging the accused prematurely.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the discharge orders in all three cases and restored the prosecutions for trial. It directed the trial court to frame charges afresh and proceed expeditiously. The decision reinforces the importance of a full trial when prima facie materials disclose potential corruption in public works. The Court’s ruling serves as a caution against prematurely terminating vigilance prosecutions by adopting an overly lenient approach at the discharge stage.
Implications
The decision strengthens vigilance jurisprudence by emphasizing that discharge cannot be used to short-circuit corruption prosecutions involving public funds. It clarifies that the judiciary must adopt a prosecution-centric perspective when evaluating prima facie material in cases involving public revenue. The ruling also provides guidance for trial courts, highlighting that defence arguments regarding sanction, expert evidence, and measurement discrepancies must be tested during trial, not at the preliminary stage. Importantly, the judgment reinforces public accountability by ensuring that allegations of misuse of official position are not prematurely dismissed.