Allahabad High Court
Imran Khan vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 14 August, 2015
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 14
A.F.R.
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2941 of 2011
Revisionist :- Imran Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- A. Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shahid Ali Siddiqui
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the revisionist despite repeated calls. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Sri Shahid Ali Siddiqui, is present.
Heard learned counsel for the respondent no. 2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that this revision has wrongly been listed in the category of infructuous cases. He submits that counter affidavit was filed far back on 16.12.2011 but the revisionist has not filed any rejoinder affidavit despite having sufficient time and opportunity. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, clearly, the revisionist is misusing the interim order of this Court whereby the further proceedings of concerned Criminal Case No. 1059 of 2007, relating to the occurrence of the year 2004, have been stayed.
In view of the fact that the revisionist, who is an accused in the Sessions Trial concerned, has neither filed any rejoinder affidavit nor his counsel is appearing for arguing the case, despite the fact that this revision and its connected Session Trial have become critically old, it appears expedient in the interest of justice, to decide the revision on merits after perusing the available record.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 1059 of 2007, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly, whereby the discharge application moved by accused / revisionist under section 239 Cr.P.C has been rejected by the lower court.
I have perused the impugned order dated 30.5.2011. The lower court has refused to discharge the revisionist on the ground that there was sufficient prima facie evidence available on record to frame the charge against him.
The law regarding discharge of an accused is well settled. The Sessions Judge has the power to discharge the accused only 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 prosecution is clearly barred by limitation, or
D-where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of High Court.
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 Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.
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.
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 cannot be expected even it 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.
It is also 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 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 it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceedings at the initial stage of framing charge. The impugned order is well in conformity with law and does not suffer from any such error, illegality or irregularity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 1.8.2011 is hereby vacated.
The copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.8.2015
G.S
