R.S. NAYAK versus A.R. ANTULAY & ANR.

R.S. NAYAK versus A.R. ANTULAY & ANR.

A prima facie case is established by the prosecution for framing charges under ss. 120B, 161, 165, and 420 IPC as well as s. 5(1) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, except for three draft charges under s. 384 IPC where no prima facie case is made out. Charges for 19 items shall be framed. The legal test for framing charge under ss. 227, 239, 245 Cr.P.C. is the presence of material justifying conviction if unrebutted. Presumption under s. 4 of the Act must be applied. The trial judge's analysis and conclusions were not sustainable as he applied inconsistent standards and failed to properly analyse evidence.

Parties
Appellant: R.S. Nayak; Respondent: A.R. Antulay
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Appeal Against Order Refusing to Frame Charges (special Case No. 24/82, Transferred From Trial Court to Bombay High Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Framing of Charges, Prima Facie Case, Presumption of Law, Discharge of Accused, Ingredients of Offences, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Framing of Charges Prima Facie Case Presumption of Law Discharge of Accused Ingredients of Offences Judicial Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.S. Nayak

Appellant

A.R. Antulay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Appeal Against Order Refusing to Frame Charges (special Case No. 24/82, Transferred From Trial Court to Bombay High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prima facie case is made out for framing charges under ss. 120B, 161, 165, 420 IPC and s. 5(1) with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient material for proceeding against persons as co-conspirators
  3. 3 Test for framing charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure

Ratio Decidendi

A prima facie case is established by the prosecution for framing charges under ss. 120B, 161, 165, and 420 IPC as well as s. 5(1) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, except for three draft charges under s. 384 IPC where no prima facie case is made out. Charges for 19 items shall be framed. The legal test for framing charge under ss. 227, 239, 245 Cr.P.C. is the presence of material justifying conviction if unrebutted. Presumption under s. 4 of the Act must be applied. The trial judge's analysis and conclusions were not sustainable as he applied inconsistent standards and failed to properly analyse evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Charges shall be framed in respect of remaining 19 draft items under IPC ss. 120B, 161, 165, 420 and Prevention of Corruption Act s. 5(1) read with s. 5(2); not for three under s. 384 IPC.
  • Trial judge to judge evidence afresh after framing of charges, considering rebuttable presumption under the Act.