Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed the revision petition seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by college lecturers accused of aiding a Principal in forging documents to secure illegal Block Grant salary from the Government. The Court upheld the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh’s order dated 29.10.2024, holding that there was sufficient prima facie material and grave suspicion justifying their prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court observed: “At the stage of considering discharge under Section 239 CrPC, it is sufficient that the prosecution has placed materials giving rise to grave suspicion against the accused.”
Facts
The case involves allegations of financial fraud by the then Principal of Koira Degree College, who allegedly manipulated records to wrongly claim Block Grant salary. It was found that the Principal, who actually joined on 16.10.2003, forged documents with the aid of other faculty and staff to reflect her joining date as 18.08.1995, making her eligible for Block Grant under a Government scheme notified in 2009. These forged documents included fabricated appointment letters, resolutions, attendance registers, and acquaintance rolls.
The role of the petitioners—Lecturers and College staff—was central, as they allegedly affixed their signatures on these forged registers and aided the recommendation sent to the Higher Education Department. The accused Principal received ₹4,83,519 as Block Grant salary between 2009 and 2014, resulting in loss to the State.
Issues
- Whether the materials on record warranted framing of charges against the petitioners under the relevant penal provisions?
- Whether mere signing of official records by the petitioners can constitute participation in a criminal conspiracy to aid the Principal’s illegal financial gain?
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that they had no role in the preparation of forged documents and merely signed attendance and acquaintance registers in the ordinary course of duty. They argued that they neither benefitted from the alleged act nor was any property entrusted to them so as to attract charges under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
They also argued that the handwriting expert had not conclusively identified their signatures on the alleged forged records. Since the Principal was the sole beneficiary, the petitioners claimed the entire culpability lay with her.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State Vigilance opposed the discharge application, arguing that the signatures of the petitioners appeared on the forged records knowingly and not as part of routine duties. The petitioners’ conduct indicated their awareness that the Principal had not joined in 1995.
Further, it was contended that the defence regarding inconclusive forensic evidence was premature and that the totality of materials, including witness statements and forged documents, created grave suspicion sufficient to frame charges.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges or deciding discharge, the test is not whether the case will ultimately result in conviction, but whether there is enough material to proceed. If the materials raise grave suspicion against the accused, then a discharge is not warranted.
The Court applied the settled principle that when documents and statements form a coherent narrative showing the involvement of the accused in the commission of offences—especially in cases involving conspiracy and public fund misappropriation—issues of defence must be left for trial.
Precedent Analysis
Though no judgments are explicitly cited in the order, the Court’s reliance on the legal threshold of “grave suspicion” at the discharge stage aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence in:
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) – holding that charge can be framed if grave suspicion arises;
- State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) – clarifying scope of Section 239 CrPC discharge;
- Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) – laying down the test for framing of charge.
These precedents affirm that strong suspicion, even if not conclusively proven at the stage of discharge, is sufficient to proceed to trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court examined the materials including the charge sheet, forged documents, witness statements, and official correspondence. It found that the petitioners were not just passive signatories but actively participated in the preparation and endorsement of documents falsely recording the Principal’s joining in 1995.
The Court rejected the defence that their signatures were part of routine faculty duties. The fact that the petitioners signed registers bearing backdated entries and forwarded recommendations knowing the Principal had joined in 2003 showed a deliberate attempt to lend credibility to false records.
The inconclusive handwriting expert’s report, the Court held, did not dilute the weight of circumstantial and testimonial evidence gathered during investigation.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding that the materials on record disclosed grave suspicion against the petitioners and justified the continuation of prosecution under Sections 409, 468, 477-A, and 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made.
Implications
This judgment underscores the low threshold required at the stage of discharge and reinforces the judicial approach that issues of defence and evidentiary appreciation should be left for trial. It also highlights judicial sensitivity towards corruption in educational institutions, especially when it leads to public fund losses.
It serves as a caution to public servants that even indirect or facilitative roles in conspiracies involving misappropriation of government resources can lead to prosecution.
Cases Referred and Their Role
While no specific citations are mentioned in the judgment, the decision relies on the principles laid down in:
- Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal: The court relied on this to uphold that grave suspicion is enough to proceed to trial.
- State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi: Reinforces that defence evidence is not to be considered at the stage of discharge.
- These cases collectively form the legal backdrop for rejecting the discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
FAQs
1. Can an accused be discharged if the handwriting expert’s opinion is inconclusive?
No. The Court held that an inconclusive handwriting expert report does not nullify other circumstantial and testimonial evidence indicating involvement in forgery or conspiracy.
2. What is the threshold for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
At the stage of discharge, the court only has to see whether the material creates grave suspicion against the accused. A full evaluation of evidence is not required.
3. Is mere signature on an official document enough to constitute criminal conspiracy?
Not always, but if the signature is found on a forged or fabricated document, and circumstances indicate knowledge and intent, it may be sufficient to implicate a person in conspiracy