HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 40 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2322 of 2015 Revisionist :- Prem Bada Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi, in Case No. 1514 of 2013, Santosh Verma Vs. Prem Bada Singh and others, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal because no offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. Learned counsel has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 entered into an agreement to sell with co-accused Ram Singh alias Pintoo Singh and paid him Rs. Three Lakhs. Neither any agreement to sell was executed by the revisionist nor any amount was received by her. However, co-accused Ram Singh @ Pintoo Singh has already returned an amount of Rs. 280000/- to the opposite party no. 2 due to his failure to get the sale deed executed in favour of O.P. No. 2.
On the aforesaid grounds it is prayed by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 8.5.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has contended that the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionist, and there is no illegality in it.
The Sessions Judge has the power to discharge the accused in the following circumstances;
A-where the evidence produced is not sufficient, B- where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused, C-where the proseuction is clearly barred by limitation, or D-where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of High Court.
The impugned order shows that the court below has elaborately discussed in it, the prima facie evidence available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.
In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.
In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the 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. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge.
In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507, the Hon'ble Apex Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma vs. C.B.I. AIR. 2000 SC 2335, has held that at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding the said statements existing in the case diary as unreliable.
In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of Bengal AIR 2000 SC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons.
In State of J & K vs. Sudarshan Khakkar AIR 1995 SC 1954 and in Rukmani Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 1013, it has been held that no weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to confine its attention to documents referred to unde Section 173 Cr.P.C. only.
In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record against the revisionist, discussed in detail by the court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the court below be directed to release the applicant on bail, if possible on the same day, and the trial proceedings be also directed to be expedited and to be concluded within a stipulated period.
As expeditious disposal of a case is the right of a litigant, the court below is directed to proceed with the case and try to bring the trial to its logical end without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and to conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible, within six months from the date of production/ receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is further directed that if the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty days from today and applies for bail, her bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously keeping in view the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 10.7.2015 Pcl