HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4959 of 2006 Revisionist :- Raman Bhuraria Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Counsel for Revisionist :- Nitin Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.S. Hajela,Nazrul Islam Jafri Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, in Case No. 8117 of 2004, C.B.I. Vs. Raman Bhuraria, whereby learned Magistrate, after rejecting the application moved by the revisionist claiming his discharge has fixed a date for framing of charges against him under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B I.P.C.
Heard Sri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that initially the case was registered against two persons only namely Mohd. Rais and Mohd. Rehan by the C.B.I. The name of the revisionist surfaced during investigation and charge sheet was filed by the C.B.I. against the revisionist too.
The facts necessary for a proper and just decision of this revision are that Mohd. Rais and Mohd. Rehan, the Managing Directors of the firm M/s Metlon India Pvt. Ltd. applied for loan of Rs. 7.5 Crores from I.D.B.I. Bank. The loan was sanctioned on 1:1 basis that is to say that the same amount, which the Bank was to give as loan, was also to be invested by the Firm. Thereafter it was found that the papers furnished by the firm for sanctioning of loan were forged. After a preliminary inquiry a criminal case was registered, which was investigated by the C.B.I. Revisionist was functioning as Chartered Accountant in the Firm. It was found that the Managing Directors had conspired with their Chartered Accountant (revisionist), who issued Chartered Accountant's Certificate dated 29.3.2001 on the basis of bogus bills. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate contained false figures of expenditure towards purchase of machines etc. in collusion with the Directors of the Company namely Mohd. Rais and Mohd. Rehan. Hence charge sheet was submitted against all of them.
The revisionist raised objection before the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, and sought discharge on the ground that no offence was made out against him and there was no chance of his conviction but the same was rejected by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, vide impugned order dated 21.8.2006.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and without considering the fact that the Directors of the Company had supplied false and fake figures to the revisionist, who simply prepared the report on the basis of those documents.
On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel for the revisionist has prayed to allow this revision and to quash the impugned order.
Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel for C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the law is well established that at the stage of framing charge the courts are required to consider only prima-facie evidence available before it and there was sufficient prima-facie material before the court below on the basis of which learned Special Judicial Magistrate(C.B.I.) has rightly rejected the discharge application and has fixed a date for framing of charge.
After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the impugned order itself, it appears that the revisionist has been found involved in the matter as a conspirator. It is true that he did not forge any document but he had issued chartered accountant certificate on the basis of forged bills allegedly prepared by co-accused Mohd. Rais and Mohd. Rehan. The revisionist was working on a very responsible post of Chartered Accountant in the Company and he was not expected to issue certificates without their proper verification. Undisputedly he had issued those certificates containing false facts and figures, which were supplied by the Directors of the Company, without any verification. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly rejected his discharge application on the basis of prima-facie evidence available on record against him.
The Trial 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.
It is well settled position of law that at the time of framing charge the accused has no right to produce any material because the expression "record of the cases" in Section 227 Cr.P.C. refers to the material produced by the prosecution and not by the accused.
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.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Panjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimarj Bizza AIR 1990 SC 1962 has held that the Court may for limited purpose sift the evidence as it canot be expected even it that inital 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.
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, which has been 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 submitted that the revisionist has been granted bail in the instant case and at present he is working at Delhi. The learned counsel has prayed that personal appearance of the revisionist during trial may be exempted because it would be very difficult for him to attend to the court on each date by coming from Delhi.
The personal appearance of an accused is required during trial only on three dates, first- when the charge is framed against him, second- when statement of accused is recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and third- on the date of judgment. It is the discretion of the trial court to permit the accused to appear through his counsel on the rest of dates fixed during trial. Therefore, the revisionist is at liberty to move an application before the learned trial court for exemption of his personal appearance on the rest of the dates in case he is not required to be personally present in the court due to some special reasons. The trial court concerned is directed to consider his application, if so moved, in accordance with law.
Dated:-11.9.2015 PCL.