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