The Bombay High Court clarified that exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not, by itself, entitle an accused to discharge in a connected criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The judgment follows and applies Supreme Court precedents, reaffirming that at the discharge stage, the court must proceed on the presumption that prosecution evidence is true, and discharge can only occur if no prima facie case is made out. This decision is binding on subordinate courts and can be relied on to resist discharge where departmental exoneration has occurred on non-identical or non-meritorious grounds.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVN/53/2020 of DILIP S/O DEORAO POHEKAR Vs STATE OF MAH., THR. P.S.O. PS SADAR, NAGPUR and ANOTHER |
| CNR | HCBM040061192020 |
| Date of Registration | 27-02-2020 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE URMILA JOSHI PHALKE |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents regarding discharge and departmental exoneration |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Prevention of Corruption Act, IPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the court presumes prosecution materials are true and does not assess their probative value. Departmental exoneration does not automatically entitle discharge unless on merits, on identical facts. Criminal allegations that are graver, wider, or involve distinct facts are unaffected. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court principles that at discharge stage only the existence of a prima facie case matters; defence and exoneration in internal proceedings are not considered unless on identical issues and conclusive. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Applicant, Superintending Engineer, was alleged to have manipulated tendering process for an irrigation project, causing loss to the exchequer by favouring contractors. Investigation and expert committees found irregularities. Departmentally exonerated, applicant sought discharge in criminal proceedings; discharge was rejected, leading to this revision. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (reinforces Supreme Court law) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Departmental exoneration does not by itself entitle an accused to discharge in related criminal proceedings if allegations are not identical or exoneration is not on merits.
- At the discharge stage, courts must assume the truth of prosecution evidence and decide only if a prima facie case is shown, without assessing sufficiency or proof.
- Defence material or explanations are generally not to be considered at discharge stage unless the prosecution case is manifestly groundless.
- Lawyers should focus discharge applications on showing that, even taken at face value, prosecution materials do not satisfy ingredients of the alleged offences.
- Departmental proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent; unless exoneration is on merits on an identical factual matrix, criminal prosecution can proceed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed jurisprudence on discharge under Section 227 CrPC, noting that at this stage, all prosecution material must be taken as true and the role of the court is only to see if a prima facie case exists.
- The Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, and others were cited for the principle that the probative value of evidence is not assessed at discharge; even grave suspicion suffices for continuing the trial.
- On departmental exoneration, the court applied the ratio of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, EOW, CBI and Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal—that only a departmental exoneration on merits, on identical facts, precludes criminal prosecution.
- Where criminal allegations are wider or involve additional facts or the departmental exoneration is on technical, procedural, or non-meritorious grounds, criminal prosecution properly proceeds.
- The court found the charges in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case were not identical; the latter included charges of forgery and specific favouring of contractors for pecuniary advantage.
- On the facts, the court found a prima facie case made out, and the order refusing discharge was correct in law and facts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No violation of procedural rules or laws in handling the tender process.
- Departmental exoneration should result in discharge from criminal prosecution as the allegations are the same.
- No loss caused to the government; technical sanction and procedure were followed.
- No forgery committed; allegations are unsubstantiated.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue for quashing prosecution after exoneration in departmental proceedings.
Respondent / State:
- Investigation showed the applicant manipulated the tendering process to favour certain contractors.
- Departmental exoneration does not preclude prosecution, especially where the allegations and scope differ.
- The materials reveal grave irregularities and a prima facie case; the standard for discharge is whether a prima facie case exists.
- Pointed to findings of expert committees and prosecution material showing applicant’s culpability.
Factual Background
The applicant, a retired Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department, was implicated in alleged irregularities relating to tenders in the Mokhabardi Lift Irrigation Scheme under the Gosikhurd National Irrigation Project. Investigations following a government-ordered probe in response to public interest litigation revealed manipulation of the tendering process, including accepting invalid experience certificates, improper cost upgradation, and irregular acceptance of joint venture documentation, allegedly to favour specific contractors. While exonerated in a subsequent departmental enquiry, the applicant’s discharge application was rejected in ensuing criminal proceedings for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Examined Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, outlining offences when a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing official position, obtains for themselves or another any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
- Detailed consideration of Section 227 CrPC (Discharge): Discharge lies only when, upon hearing both sides and considering the “record of the case” (prosecution materials), no sufficient ground exists for proceeding. Relied on Supreme Court’s exposition that “record of the case” is prosecution materials only, not defence evidence; accused has no right to adduce defence materials at this stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law regarding discharge and the relevance of departmental exoneration was affirmed and strictly applied.
Citations
- MANU/SC/1113/2023 (State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao)
- (2014) 11 SCC 709 (State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan)
- (1996) 4 SCC 659 (State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa)
- (2000) 6 SCC 338 (State of MP vs. Mohan Lal Soni)
- (1973) 3 SCC 4 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal)
- AIR 2023 SC 2480 (Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf)
- (2020) 9 SCC 636 (Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, EOW, CBI)
- (2011) 3 SCC 581 (Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal)
- (2012) 9 SCC 685 (State of NCT of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi)
- AIR OnLine 1996 SC 54 (P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar)