2019 INSC 0502 REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 949  OF 2019     (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1253 of 2019) ASIM SHARIFF   ….Appellant(s) VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The   present   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the   accused appellant   against   whom   a   criminal   case   bearing   no.   RC   04/16­ NIA­HYD   came   to   be   registered   along   with   four   other   accused persons   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   120­B,   109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC; Sections 3 and 27   of   the   Arms   Act   and   Sections   15,16,17,18   &   20   of   the 1 Unlawful   Activities(Prevention)   Act,   1967(hereinafter   being referred to as “UAP Act”). 3. After   completion   of   the   investigation,   final   report   was submitted   before   the   trial   Court   against   the   accused   persons including   appellant.     The   appellant   claims   that   there   was   no material for registering the criminal case neither investigating nor submitting   the   final   report   against   him.     At   this   stage,   the appellant filed application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure,   1973(hereinafter   being   referred   to  as   “CrPC”)   seeking his   discharge   from   the   case   for   the   aforesaid   offences.     The application was dismissed by  the trial Judge/Special Judge who ordered   for   framing   of   charges   against   him   for   the   aforesaid offences   under   Order   dated   2 nd   January,   2018   came   to   be challenged   by   the   appellant   in   a   writ   petition   filed   under   Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC which   was   dismissed   by   a   lucid   impugned   judgment   dated   22 nd November,   2018   which   is   a   subject   matter   of   challenge   in   the instant appeal. 2 4. The background facts giving rise to this appeal which needs to   be   noted   are   that   a   criminal   case   came   to   be   registered   as Crime   No.   124/2016   on   16 th   October,   2016   for   the   offences punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   IPC   by Commercial   Street   Police   after   a   complaint   was   filed   by   one Jayaram(CW­1), who stated that on 16 th  October, 2016 at around 12.40   p.m.   when   he   along   with   his   friends   namely   Rudresh, Harikrishna and Kumar assembled near Srinivas Medical Stores, Shivajinagar,   one   person(accused)   being   the   pillion   rider   of   the motorcycle   hacked   Rudresh   with   a   sharp   edged   and   lethal machete   on   the   right   side   of   his   neck   and   fled.     Rudresh   was taken to a hospital wherein he was declared brought dead. 5. Initially,   four   accused   persons   (Accused   nos.   1   to   4)   were arrested on 27 th   October, 2016.   Accused no. 5(appellant herein) was  arrested on  2 nd   November, 2016.   Subsequently,  the task  of investigation was entrusted to National Investigating Agency(NIA) by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 7 th December, 2016.   NIA registered FIR in RC No. 24/2016 against all   five   accused   persons   including   the   appellant.     After 3 investigation,   the   charge   sheet   was   submitted   against   all   five accused   persons   on   21 st   April,   2017   which   stated   that   accused nos.  1  to   4  conspired  with  the   accused  appellant(accused  no.  5) to   kill   RSS   members   and   in   furtherance   of   their   acts,   they committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section   34   IPC.     The   accused   persons   were   said   to   be   in possession   of   weapons   without   license,   thereby   it   attracted   the offence   punishable   under   Sections   3   and   27   of   the   Arms   Act. Further,   the   acts   of   the   accused   persons   including   the   accused appellant amounted to offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109,   150,   153A,   302,   201   read   with   Section   34   IPC   and   under Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of the UAP Act. 6. The   appellant   sought   discharge   under   Section   227   CrPC along with other accused persons which came to be rejected vide order   dated   2 nd   January,   2018   and   framed   charges   against   the accused persons including accused appellant.  Special NIA Court under   its   Order   dated   2 nd   January,   2018   while   deciding   the application   of   appellant   seeking   discharge   under   Section   227 CrPC   observed   that   it  was   admitted   by  the  defence  counsel   that the appellant is the President of Bengaluru unit of Popular Front 4 of  India(PFI)  and  the  other  accused  persons  nos.  1  to  4  are also the members of PFI.  It was also admitted by the defence counsel that   there   was   frequent   telephonic/mobile   phone   conversation among the accused persons nos. 1 to 5 prior and subsequent to 16 th  October, 2016(the date of the incident) which gave rise to the Special   NIA   Court   to   arrive   at   a   conclusion   that   the   material placed   in   the   charge­sheet   on   record   gives   rise   to   sufficient grounds   of   subjective   satisfaction   of   prima   facie   case   of   alleged offence of conspiracy being hatched among the accused persons. It further observed that the accused appellant has failed to justify the   necessary   ingredients   of   Section   227   CrPC   and   finally   held that the matter deserved to be proceeded with framing of charge. The   said   order   came   to   be   affirmed   by   the   High   Court   on dismissal   of   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   unsuccessful appellant   vide   its   impugned   judgment   dated   22 nd   November, 2018.  7. Ms.   Kamini   Jaiswal,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant submits   that   the   impugned   judgment   has   resulted   in   grave miscarriage   of   justice   and   is   based   on   an   erroneous interpretation   of   the   factual   circumstances   of   the   case   and   the 5 High   Court   has   not   taken   into   consideration   the   oral   and documentary evidence on record in the proper perspective which has vitiated the entire proceedings and led to gross injustice. 8. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   bare   reading   of the extract of charge sheet reveals that the prosecution has failed to  adduce evidence which was against the  appellant.  That CW 1 to 53, 55 to 76, 78 to 86, 86­92, 94 to 96 and 98 to 112 did not whisper   anything   against   the   appellant   and   the   other   witnesses relied by the prosecution to make out a case against him are the witnesses   of   the   Mahzar   proceedings   who   provided   some information   like   bank   account   details   and   call   data   records, which in no way discloses any incriminating material against the appellant. 9.   According   to   the   learned   counsel,   the   charge   against   the appellant is without any basis and merely on suspicion as there is nothing  to  reveal that  the appellant was the main conspirator behind   the   alleged   murder   termed   as   a   terror   attack.     The allegation   that   he   planned   the   conspiracy   along   with   other   PFI members to kill RSS members and arranged conspiracy meetings 6 and executed the plan of striking terror among a section of people belonging   to   RSS   is   concocted   and   without   any   substance   as nothing   incriminating   has   been   recovered   from   the   appellant   or to support the prosecution story and in the given circumstances, rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC by the trial Judge and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. 10. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   though   the   alleged incident   as   per   the   case   of   prosecution   has   been   planned   and executed on the last day of Navaratri being Vijayadashmi whereas it is a matter of record that the Navaratri was already over on the said   date   and   the   Vijayadashmi   was   on   11 th   October,   2016   and the   alleged   incident   was   on   16 th   October,   2016.     Such   a statement   was   made   just   to   prejudice   the   mind   of   the   Court   to frame   charge   against   the   appellant   which   is   unreasonable   and unjustified and this has not been looked into and appreciated by the High Court in its impugned judgment. 11. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   none   of   the   accused in   this   case   are   the   member   of   any   terrorist   organisation   which 7 are   banned   under   the   schedule   of   UAP   Act   and,   therefore,   the question   of   invocation   of   UAP   Act,   after   completion   of investigation,   was   not   attracted   and   at   least   the   charge   framed against   him   for   the   offences   under   UAP   Act   was   not   legally sustainable in law. 12. Per contra, Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned ASG appearing for the respondent with his usual vehemence submits that Section 15 of UAP   Act   covers   both   the   act   of   an   individual   and   a   terrorist gang/association and as per Section 20 of the UAP Act, it is not necessary   for   an   association/organisation   to   be   included   in   the schedule, for punishing a terrorist act carried out by them.   13. Learned counsel further submits that the incident occurred on a day when the RSS workers had organised a path sanchalan, and   the   deceased,   who   was   dressed   in   uniform,   was   brutually attacked by the accused persons whereby his throat was slit in a single blow, resulting  in his immediate death.   Admittedly, there is no animosity between the appellant and deceased.  The nature of   the   act   including   the   recoveries   made   shows   that   the consequences  were   intended  to  be  beyond   the  physical  act   itself 8 and was to create fear in the minds of the people at large and to create insecurity and foster disharmony. 14. Learned counsel further submits that the series of evidence reveals the appellant’s involvement in the commission of crime:­ i) Appellant   is   the   District   President   of   the   Popular Front   of   India(PFI)   which   has   been   involved   in killings of several RSS members/Hindu leaders in Karnataka in the past three years. ii) Seizure   of   banner   dated   12 th   December,   2016 which   bore   the   names   and   photograph   of   all   the accused including the accused appellant. iii) Several telephone exchanges between accused no. 1 to 4 and the accused appellant. iv) Disclosure report dated 4 th  November, 2016 which reveals   that   a   leather   purse   containing   a   letter written   by   accused   no.   4   was   discovered   at   the office   of   the   appellant,   wherein   accused   no.  4   list out   17   murders   committed   by   PFI   in   near   past with   a   note   as   to   why   the   murder   of   deceased Rudresh   had   attracted   so   much   attention   as compared to other murders. v) Investigation revealed that about 8­9 months prior to   the   incident,   all   the   accused   had   attended indoctrination   classes   organised   by   accused appellant   and   other   members   where   accused persons   were   recruited   and   brainwashed   by   the appellant to kill RSS members. vi) Accused   no.   4   confesses   that   accused   appellant was   the   mastermind   behind   the   killing   of   RSS members. 9 15. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   there   is   a   strong suspicion  which  leads  the  Court  to  think  that  the  appellant  has committed   an   offence   which   clearly   borne   out   from   the   charge­ sheet   placed   on   record   and   the   trial   Court   rightly   held   that   the prima   facie   case   was   made   out   against   the   appellant   and   after the matter has been elaborately considered by the High Court in revisiting   the   factual   matrix   taken  note  by   the   trial  Court  under its   Order   dated   2 nd   January,   2018,   no   interference   at   least   is called for in the appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant. 16. Before we proceed to examine the facts of the present case, it   may   be   apposite   to   take   note   of   the   ambit   and   scope   of   the powers   of   the   Court   at   the   time   of   considering   the   discharge application.   This Court in   Union of India   Vs.   Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors.    1  had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 227 CrPC and it held in paragraph 7 as under:­ “7.   Section 227 of the Code runs thus: “If,   upon   consideration   of   the   record   of   the case   and   the   documents   submitted   therewith, and   after   hearing   the   submissions   of   the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge   considers   that   there   is   not   sufficient ground   for   proceeding   against   the   accused,   he 1 1979(3) SCC 4 10 shall   discharge   the   accused   and   record   his reasons for so doing.” The words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post   office   to   frame   the   charge   at   the   behest   of   the prosecution,   but   has   to   exercise   his   judicial   mind   to the   facts   of   the   case   in   order   to   determine   whether   a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing  this fact, it  is not  necessary  for   the  court  to enter   into   the   pros   and   cons   of   the   matter   or   into   a weighing   and   balancing   of   evidence   and   probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage   of   Section   227,   the   Judge   has   merely   to   sift   the evidence   in   order   to   find   out   whether   or   not   there   is sufficient   ground   for   proceeding   against   the   accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature   of   the   evidence   recorded   by   the   police   or   the documents   produced   before   the   court   which   ex   facie disclose   that   there   are   suspicious   circumstances against   the   accused   so   as   to   frame   a   charge   against him.” 17. In   Sajjan   Kumar   Vs.   Central   Bureau   of Investigation    2 ,   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the scope   of   Section   227   and   228   CrPC.     The   principles   which emerged   therefrom   have   been   taken   note   of   in   para   21   as under:­ “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: ( i ) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to 2 2010(9) SCC 368 11 determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ( ii ) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. ( iii ) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. ( iv ) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. ( v ) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. ( vi ) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. ( vii ) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from 12 grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 18. The   exposition   of   law   on   the   subject   has   been   further considered by this Court in  State  Vs.  S. Selvi and Ors.    3  followed in  Vikram Johar  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.    4 19. Taking   note   of   the   exposition   of   law   on   the   subject   laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the   question   of   framing   charge   under   Section   227   CrPC   in sessions   cases(which   is   akin   to   Section   239   CrPC   pertaining   to warrant   cases)   has   the   undoubted   power   to   sift   and   weigh   the evidence   for   the  limited   purpose   of   finding   out   whether   or   not   a prima  facie  case  against  the  accused  has  been  made  out;  where the   material   placed   before   the   Court   discloses   grave   suspicion against   the   accused   which   has   not   been   properly   explained,   the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two   views   are   possible   and   one   of   them   giving   rise   to   suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, 3 2018(13) SCC 455 4 2019(6) SCALE 794 13 the   trial   Judge   will   be   justified   in   discharging   him.     It   is   thus clear   that   while   examining   the   discharge   application   filed   under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its   judicial   mind   to   determine   as   to   whether   a   case   for   trial   has been   made   out   or   not.     It   is   true   that   in   such   proceedings,   the Court   is   not   supposed   to   hold   a   mini   trial   by   marshalling   the evidence on record. 20. If   we   advert   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   initially   a criminal   case   came   to   be   registered   in   Crime   No.   124/2016   on 16 th   October,   2016   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section 302,   34   of   IPC   by   Commercial   Street   Police   over   the   murder   of one   Rudresh.     Initially,   four   accused   persons   were   arrested   in connection with the crime.   Subsequently, National Investigation Agency(NIA)   registered   first   information   in   R.C.   No.   24/2016 including the appellant­Asim Shariff (accused no. 5) in the list of the   accused.     The   task   of   investigation   was   entrusted   to   NIA   by the   Union   of   India,   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs(Internal   Security­1 Division),   North   Block,   New   Delhi   through   its   orders   dated   7 th December,   2016   as   per   Section   6(5)   read   with   Section   8   of   the National   Investigation   Act.     In   obedience   to   the   said   order,   the 14 NIA,   Hyderabad   Branch,   registered   the   case   in   RC   04/16­NIA­ HYD for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 150, 153A,   302,   201   read   with   Section   34   IPC;   Sections   3   and   27   of the Arms Act and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 & 20 of the UAP Act. 21. After   completion   of   the   investigation,   final   report   was submitted before the trial Court against the accused persons 1 to 5  on   21 st   April,  2017.     At  this   stage,  the   application   filed   by  the accused appellant under Section 227 CrPC seeking his discharge from   the   charge   for   the   aforesaid   offences   came   to   be   dismissed by   the   trial   Court,   after   recording   cogent   reasons   and   order   of framing charge against him and other accused persons (accused nos.   1   to   4)   under   its   Order   dated   12 th   January,   2018.     The extract of the order is as follows:­ “22. It  is  needless to  mention herein that  this Court  has already taken the cognizance of offences alleged and it is needless   to   mention   herein   that   obtaining   of   sanction   is condition   precedent   as   on   the   date   of   taking   cognizance of   the   offences   alleged.   That   the   Sanction   having   been obtained   by   the   NIA   at   the   time   of   cognizance   of   alleged offences and the cognizance having been already taken by this Court, this court is of the firm view that it is not good to pass any orders in respect of sanction for the simplest reason   that   passing   of   any   orders   with   regard   to genuineness   or   otherwise   of   sanction,   the   same   would amounts   to   an   act   of   usurping   of   appellate   or   revisional jurisdiction. That the order of taking cognizance is intact 15 even   on   this   day.   Therefore,   for   the   reasons   assigned   in these paragraphs and in the preceding paragraphs of this order,   NIA   has   established   that   material   adduced   by   it are   sufficient   enough   to   proceed   with   the   case   and   that the   same   do   give   subjective   satisfaction   of   existence   of prima­facie   case   of   alleged   offences.   Therefore,   the subject   matter   of   Point   No.2   deserves   to   be   answered   in the  Negative,  that   of   Point   No.3   deserves  to  be   answered in   the   affirmative   and   that   of   point   No.4   in   the   Negative and   the   said   points   are   hereby   answered   accordingly. This court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The   application   filed   under   Section   227   Cr.P.C.   by the   accused   No.5   is   hereby   dismissed.   That   the   case   on hand deserves to be proceeded with framing of charge in respect   of   alleged   offences   as   mentioned   in   the   charge sheet as against all the accused persons.” 22. The   unsuccessful   appellant   filed   writ   petition   under   Article 226   and   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   read   with   Section   482 CrPC.     The   High   Court   after   analysing   the   entire   material   on record confirmed the view expressed by the trial Judge and held as under:­ “ No   doubt   the   present   petition   is   invoking   writ jurisdiction   under   the   Constitution   of   India   and inherent powers of this Court, regard being had to the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the stand of the   petitioner   was   specifically   negatived   by   the   orders of this Court. The matter has been urged, assessed and adjudicated in the proceedings and again the petitioner has come for the next round. On facts or in law there is no   material   worth   to   suggest   fallibility   of   the proceedings   in   Spl.   C.C.   No.181/2017   pending   on   the file   of   XLIX   Addl.   City   Civil   &   Sessions   Judge   (Special Court   of   trial   of   NIA   cases)   at   Bengaluru   for   the offences   punishable   u/S   302,   201   r/w   Sec.   34   of   IPC and   Section   3   and   27   of   Arms   Act   and   under   Section 16 15,   16,   17,   18   and   20   of   Unlawful   Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.” 23. That   apart,   we   have   also   gone   through   the   relevant   record and extract of the charge­sheet placed on record for perusal, the fact   reveals   that   the   accused   appellant   is   the   President   of Bengaluru   unit   of   Popular   Front   of   India(PFI)   and   the   other accused nos. 1 to 4 are also the members of PFI.   It reveals from the   charge­sheet   that   there   was   frequent   telephonic/mobile conversation   between   appellant(accused   no.   5)   with   other accused   persons(accused   nos.   1   to   4)   prior   and   subsequent   to 16 th  October, 2016 (the alleged date of incident) which persuaded the   Court   to   arrive   to   a   conclusion   that   there   is   a   prima   facie material of  conspiracy   among  the  accused  persons  giving  rise to sufficient grounds of subjective satisfaction of prima facie case of alleged offences of  conspiracy  being  hatched among  the  accused persons   and   truth   &   veracity   of   such   conspiracy   is   to   be examined during the course of trial.     24. After going through the records and the judgment impugned before   us,   in   the   present   facts   and   circumstances,   we   find   no error in the judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by 17 the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22 nd   November, 2018 which calls for our interference. 25. We make it clear that what has been observed by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and any observations made shall either way not prejudice the rights of the parties during the course of trial and the trial Court may also not to   be   influenced/inhibited   by   the   observations   made   by   us   and proceed with the trial independently in accordance with law. 26. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. 27. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ………………………..J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) ………………………..J. (AJAY RASTOGI) New Delhi July 01, 2019 18