SC affirms: At Section 227 Cr.P.C. stage, existence of ‘grave suspicion’ mandates trial; discharge cannot rest on defence pleas

Case Name: M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 07, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 6; Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the former Director of Mines and Geology, Karnataka, affirming the High Court’s order setting aside his discharge. The Court held that at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C., the test is whether materials on record raise grave suspicion. The appellant’s role in permitting Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) despite legal objections raised a prima facie case.

Summary: The appellant, an IAS officer and Director of Mines, was arrayed as an accused in the illegal mining case involving Associated Mining Company (AMC). The charge-sheet alleged that he abused his position and, in conspiracy with others, facilitated illegal issuance of MDPs in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Trial Court had discharged him, noting lack of direct evidence. The High Court reversed, observing that circumstantial evidence particularly his noting of having consulted the Deputy Director (Legal), who denied giving such opinion was sufficient to raise grave suspicion. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the defence of past departmental practice and bona fide conduct could not be considered at the discharge stage.

Decision: Appeal dismissed. High Court order restored. Observations were confined to the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and would not prejudice the trial on merits.