Jharkhand High Court
Gyanchand Prasad Agrawal vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 8 September, 2023
-1- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
Gyanchand Prasad Agrawal ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through CBI ..... ... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
Ajay Kumar ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through CBI ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate.
[in Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018]
: Ms Sonal Sodhani, Advocate.
[in Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018]
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I.
: Ms Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to D.S.G.I.
------
21/ 08.09.2023 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1405 of 2018, Ms. Sonal
Sodhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal
Revision No. 1556 of 2018 and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I.
appearing for the CBI in both the cases.
2. The petition dated 23.02.2018 filed by Gyanchand Prasad
Agrawal was decided by order dated 07.09.2018 and the petition filed
by Ajay Kumar was also decided by the same order dated 07.09.2018,
in connection with R.C. Case No. 06(A)/2009-E by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad,
which are under challenge in these petitions.
3. I.A. No. 6143 of 2019 in Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018 and
I.A. No. 5485 of 2019 in Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018 were filed for
subsequent development, as the charge has been framed, which was
allowed by order dated 15.07.2019, in view of that, the order of framing
charge dated 21.05.2019 is also under challenge.
4. The FIR was lodged on 05.06.2009 alleging inter alia that
an information has been received through a reliable source that
Dolomite is required by the Steel Plants for consumption in their
Furnace as consumable items. Normally Dolomite having silica
-2- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
contents less than 1.5% is required to be used. In case of silica
percentage more 1.5% then Limestone is also required to be used.
Nowadays Dolomite having Silica content less than 1.5% is not
available in the domestic mines in Chhattisgarh area.
It is further alleged that during the year 2008, M/s Bokaro
Steel Plant purchased 1,69,000 tonnes silica content vide (B.S.P)
had of Dolomite Purchase with Order No. P13.0/HO15/99021
dated 31.01.2008 from M/s Dolomite Baraduar, Mining
Corporation Chhattisgarh @ M/s DMC), Rs.415.86 per MT (total
value of about Rs. Seven Crores) at an exorbitant rate prevailing to
market rate, as per terms & conditions mentioned Purchase Order
referred above.
It is further alleged that M/s. Dolomite Mining Corporation
Chhattisgarh in (M/s DMC), connivance with Baraduar, unknown
officials of Bokaro Steel Plant and Public Analyst, M/s.
Superintendence Company India (P) Ltd., Katni has dishonestly
and fraudulently supplied the sub-standard quality of Dolomite
with silica a content in the range of 3/4% and passing it of as good
quality silica with silica content in the range of 1.5%. M/s
Superintendence Company India (P) Ltd., Katni had dishonestly
and fraudulently prepared the false/forged test reports of Dolomite
falsely showing it to be specifications mentioned in Purchase
Order under reference. Whereas the test reports of the supplied
Dolomite conducted by the Research and Control Laboratory (R &
C Lab) at Bokaro Steel Plant, actual Silica content (Sio2) has been
found to be far off the specifications of the Purchase Order i.e.
1.5%.
It is further alleged that the officials of Bokaro Steel Plant
had dishonestly and knowingly subdued the facts and accepted the
sub-standard quality of Dolomite and by abusing their officials
position allowed to make the payment to the supplier firms which
caused huge loss to Bokaro Steel Plant and corresponding
wrongful gain to themselves and others.
It is further alleged that the above facts prima-facie disclose
the commission of offence u/s 120-B /w Section 420, 467, 468,
-3- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 on the part of (1) M/s Dolomite Mining
Corporation, Baradwar, Chhattisgarh-through its Directors/
Owners (2) M/s Superintendence Company India (P) Ltd., Katni
(M. P) through its Director/Owner and (3) and other unknown
officials / officers of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro (Jharkhand).
On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, FIR being R.C.
Case No. 6A/09(E) has been registered against the accused
persons.
5. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1405 of 2018 submits that the
Investigating Agency without making any proper inquiry, submitted the
chargesheet against the petitioner. He submits that the learned court has
taken the cognizance by order dated 29.06.2010, which was challenged
before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1643 of 2011, which was dismissed by
the order dated 14.11.2014. He further submits that the discharge
petition was filed, which was also rejected by the learned court, in view
of that the present revision petition has been filed. He further submits
that the petitioner Ajay Kumar was posted as Senior Manager in Raw
Materials Department of Bokaro Steel Plant in October, 2005 and
continued in the said post till 08.08.2008 and thereafter the petitioner
was transferred to Raw Material Handling Plant of Bokaro Steel Plant,
Bokaro. He further submits that in the FIR itself it has been disclosed
that the purchase order dated 31.01.2008 issued by Senior Manager
(Purchase), Purchase Department of Bokaro Steel Plant in favour of
M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation, Baraduar for supply of Dolomite
and the said supply has been made in pursuance to the terms and
conditions of the aforesaid purchase order. He further submits that in
terms of the purchase order (Anexure-1), the supply was required to be
made and he particularly refers to Clause-2 and submits that the said
clause related to determination of criminal liability of any officer in the
company and also deals with Sampling and Analysis and it has been
specifically provided therein that the same has to be conducted at
Loading Point by the Public Analyst and the panel given by purchaser
i.e. Bokaro Steel Plant. He further submits that the right of the
-4- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
purchaser has been reserved to conduct periodic check of sampling and
analysis being done at the loading point. It has also been pointed that
there will be random check of material on receipt at Bokaro Steel Plant
and such check will be done in presence of Public Analyst and the
result of such check will be discussed with them. He submits that in
absence of any random check of material on receipt at Bokaro Steel
Plant in presence of the Public Analyst nor any adverse report made by
the Public Analyst on the loading point of materials and in absence of
any such report, payment to the supplier neither can be stopped nor can
be rejected by any means. He further submits that during the tenure of
the petitioner, only 07 rakes (Approx 27,000 MTs) of materials has
been received at Bokaro Steel Plant and after transfer of the petitioner,
the maximum supply of 26 rakes (Approx 1,00,560 MT) have been
made by the seller to the purchaser. He also submits that whereas the
CBI has made allegation against the petitioner in their chargesheet on
total receipt quantity of 1,27,560 MT and has given the clean chit to the
officer of Bokaro Steel Plant during whose tenure 1,00,560 MT of
materials were received. He further submits that the third part i.e.
Umpire Sample was kept in the custody of the Public Analyst for a
period of 90 days. He further submits that 1st seven rakes were well
within the permissible limits of the purchase order specification. He
also submits that even the analysis result of the Public Analyst were
accepted by the Bokaro Steel Plant for releasing payment without
levying any penalty. He further submits that the CBI has technically
failed to conceive that Advice Note is a document showing weighment
of the rake recorded at Bokaro Steel Plant. He also submits that Advice
Note sent to Finance and Accounts Department for releasing payment
to the supplier certifies only quantity of materials received at Bokaro
and not the quality whatsoever. He submits that the Advice Note is
purely a document on quantity.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the CBI in their chargesheet has also mentioned that in one of the
GRNs namely GRN No. 17/145, wherein Silica content was found to be
1.68% i.e. more than 1.5% in a lot of 325.75 MT, penalty was levied.
He also submits that in view of Annexure-11, which is the reply to the
-5- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
Audit para, the further allegation against the petitioner is not true and
the case of the petitioner is strengthened. He further submits that if any
wrong is there that is the civil wrong for the breach of contract and no
case of criminality is made out. On these grounds, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that without appreciating all these
facts, the learned court has rejected the discharge petition, which is
against the mandate of law.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if
the case is made out, the High Court is having power to exercise the
power for quashing of the entire proceeding even on the subsequent
development i.e. after filing the chargesheet and also after framing of
the charge. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Durga
Prasad Versus State of Bihar, reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Pat 403.
He further relied in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Versus Madan
Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330. Relying on these two
judgments, Mr. Rai, learned counsel submits that the case of the
petitioner is fit to be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be
discharged from the case.
8. Ms. Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1556 of 2018 accepted the
argument of Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Criminal Revision No. 1405 of 2018 and she further added in Criminal
Revision No. 1556 of 2018 and submits that on 31.08.2008 for the
procurement of 1,69,000 MTs Dolomite, purchase order vide
P13.0/H015/99021 had been issued vide specification CaO.28/32%
minimum MgO 20%, Minimum and SiO2 1.5% maximum up to 2%
with penalty. She submits that the total purchase order of 1,69,000 MTs
Dolomite, the petitioner's firm had supplied the articles and received by
the Bokaro Steel Plant total 1,26,560.67 MTs from May, 2008 to April,
2009. She further submits that the purchaser also got satisfied the
supply made by the seller even before the use of Dolomite. She further
submits that time and again the sample has been tested and verified by
the authority and after being satisfied, instructions were issued either
for the continuous supply of the Dolomite or for joint sampling of the
articles in question. By way of referring the chargesheet, she submits
-6- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
that the aforesaid aspects of the matter has not been correctly been
investigated by the CBI and the learned court without appreciating
these facts has been pleased to reject the discharge petition, filed by the
petitioner. In view of the above, she submits that the petitioner may
kindly be discharged from the case.
9. Per contra, Mr. Pallav, learned DSGI appearing for the CBI
submits that the case was registered on the basis of source information
alleging therein that M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation, Baradwar,
Chhatisgarh in connivance with unknown officials of Bokaro Steel
Plant and Public Analyst, M/s Superintendence Company India (P) Ltd.
Katni had dishonestly and fraudulently supplied the sub-standard
quality of Dolomite with Silica content in the range of 3-4% and
passing it a good quality Silica with content in the range of 1.5%. He
submits that the case has been investigated in the right direction. He
further submits that it has come in the chargesheet at para-13(b) that the
Tender Committee was constituted a Technical and Commercial
Committee to evaluate the documents of the firms, who had offered to
supply the dolomite having silica contents 1.5% and the petitioner Ajay
Kumar is also in the said committee. He further submits that it has
come in para-13(h) of the chargesheet that after placement of purchase
order on 31.01.2008 M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation has supplied
1,29,980 MTs dolomite as against 1,69,000 MTs from 18.05.2008 to
29.04.2009, whereas M/s Bokaro Steel Plant has received only
1,27,560.67 MTs, for which, the goods receipt note (GRN) were issued
under the signature of petitioner Ajay Kumar, the then Sr. Manager and
Shri Love Kumar Pandey. They have issued the advise note to the
Finance Department of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant for making the payment
to M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation without imposing any penalty, as
per penalty clause of terms and conditions of the purchase order, except
in one case where the silica contents were found more than 1.5% i.e.
1.68% in 325.75 MTs vide GRN No. 17/145. He further submits that it
has further been recorded in the chargesheet that sum of Rs.
5,73,25,679/- was paid to M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation. He
further submits that in para-13(n) of the chargesheet, it has come that
the GRN and advise note for making the payment to the Finance
-7- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
Department without imposing any penalty as per penalty clause of the
purchase order by the petitioner Ajay Kumar. He submits that from the
chargesheet it has been revealed that sub-standard Dolomite with silica
has been supplied by M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation was
recommended and the role of the petitioner Ajay Kumar has been
described therein, and M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation has been
made the beneficiary.
10. Mr. Pallav, learned DSGI, appearing for the CBI in view of
the above submits that the learned court has considered all aspect of the
matter and thereafter passed the impugned order and at this stage, this
court is not required to rove into and make a mini trial to come to a
conclusion that the case of discharge is made out and to buttress his
argument, he relied in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 561, where in
paras-11, 13 and 14 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:-
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of
charge the court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view
to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom,
taken at their face value, disclosed the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At that stage, the court is not expected
to go deep into the probative value of the
material on record. What needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed
and not a ground for convicting the accused has
been made out. At that stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the
court to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting
the offence alleged would justify the framing of
charge against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence.
13. Then again in State of Maharashtra and
others Vs. Som Nath Thapa and others , a three
judge Bench of this Court, after noting three
pairs of sections viz. (i) Sections
227 and 228 insofar as sessions trial is
-8- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 relatable
to trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections
245 (1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases,
which dealt with the question of framing of
charge or discharge, stated thus:
32. ...... if on the basis of materials on record, a
court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case for framing of charge
exists. To put it differently, if the court were to
think that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
the accused has committed the offence. It is
apparent that at the stage of framing of a
charge, probative value of the materials on
record cannot be gone into; the materials
brought on record by the prosecution has to be
accepted as true at that stage.
14. In a later decision in State of M.P. Vs.
Mohanlal Soni , this Court, referring to several
previous decisions held that:
"7. The crystallized judicial view is that at the
stage of framing charge, the court has to prima
facie consider whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. The court is
not required to appreciate evidence to conclude
whether the materials produced are sufficient or
not for convicting the accused."
11. Relying on this judgment, he submits that at this stage, the
court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the material
on record, which can only be the subject matter of trial.
12. Learned counsel further relied in the case of State of Tamil
Nadu by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Versus N.
Suresh Ranjan & Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709, where in paras-
29, 32.4, 33 and 34, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to
the rival submissions and the submissions made
by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that
at the time of consideration of the applications
for discharge, the court cannot act as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-
-9- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
office and may sift evidence in order to find out
whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge.
It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the court has to
proceed with an assumption that the materials
brought on record by the prosecution are true
and evaluate the said materials and documents
with a view to find out whether the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage,
probative value of the materials has to be gone
into and the court is not expected to go deep
into the matter and hold that the materials
would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether there is
a ground for presuming that the offence has
been committed and not whether a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out. To
put it differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence on
the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge; though
for conviction, the court has to come to the
conclusion that the accused has committed the
offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at
this stage.
32.4 While passing the impugned orders, the
court has not sifted the materials for the
purpose of finding out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused but whether that would warrant a
conviction. We are of the opinion that this was
not the stage where the court should have
appraised the evidence and discharged the
accused as if it was passing an order of
acquittal. Further, defect in investigation itself
cannot be a ground for discharge. In our
opinion, the order impugned suffers from grave
error and calls for rectification.
33. Any observation made by us in this
judgment is for the purpose of disposal of these
appeals and shall have no bearing on the trial.
The surviving respondents are directed to
-10- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
appear before the respective courts on 3rd of
February, 2014. The Court shall proceed with
the trial from the stage of charge in accordance
with law and make endeavour to dispose of the
same expeditiously.
34. In the result, we allow these appeals and set
aside the order of discharge with the aforesaid
observation.
13. Relying on this judgment, he submits that in the
chargesheet materials are there and the court is required to proceed with
an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution
are true and what has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners are only the subject matter of trial.
14. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials
available on record including the chargesheet as well the impugned
order, passed by the learned court and further the order of framing the
charge, which was subsequently allowed in view of the I.As. filed by
the petitioners in their respective cases. In the chargesheet, it has been
disclosed that the Tender Committee was constituted, in which, the
petitioner Ajay Kumar was also one of the member. It has also been
disclosed in the chargesheet that after placement of order dated
31.01.2008, M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation has supplied 1,29,980
MTs dolomite as against 1,69,000 MTs from 18.05.2008 to 29.04.2009,
whereas M/s Bokaro Steel Plant has received only 1,27,560.67 MTs,
for which, the goods receipt note (GRN) were issued under the
signature of petitioner Ajay Kumar, the then Sr. Manager and Shri Love
Kumar Pandey. They have issued the advise note to the Finance
Department of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant for making the payment to M/s
Dolomite Mining Corporation without imposing any penalty, as per
penalty clause of terms and conditions of the purchase order, except in
one case where the silica contents were found more than 1.5% i.e.
1.68% in 325.75 MTs vide GRN No. 17/145.
15. It appears that supply was alleged to be made of 1,29,980
MTs of Dolomite, whereas the Bokaro Steel Plant has received only
1,27,560.67 MTs and the GRN was issued under the signature of
-11- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
petitioner Ajay Kumar, the question remains why lesser supply of
Dolomite was received by the Bokaro Steel Plant, whereas the supply
order was said to be made vide GRN of 1,29,980 MTs. Admittedly, a
sum of Rs. 5,73,25,679/- was released to M/s Dolomite Mining
Corporation.
16. In para-13(n) of the chargesheet, it has been further
disclosed that the petitioner Ajay Kumar, the then Senior Manager,
Bokaro Steel Plant was well aware of the results conducted by the
Analyst, which has been clearly shown that the silica content was far
away from the specification as per the purchase order. He wrote letters
dated 03.07.2008 and 04.07.2008 to M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation
by mentioning Silica content 3.80% as per the sample test at the plant
and directed for improvement in the material. He had also issued the
GRN and advise note for making the payment to the Finance
Department without imposing any penalty as per penalty clause of the
purchase order.
17. Thus, issuing of two letters by the petitioner Ajay Kumar,
he was knowing that the more contents of Silica are being supplied in
spite of that he has advised for payment that too without following the
terms and conditions of the purchase order and in absence of any
penalty. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1556 of 2018 is the
beneficiary of the said action, who has supplied the substandard
Dolomite. As such, prima facie it appears that in the investigation, the
materials have come against these petitioners.
18. It is well settled that the law does not permit a mini trial at
the stage of discharge and facts are there that can be only subject matter
of trial. The purpose of framing charge is to intimate the accused about
clear unambiguous and precise nature of acquisition and the accused is
called upon to meet the course of trial. The scope of enquiry by a Judge
is required to be considered at the question of framing of charge and
this aspect of the matter has been considered in the case of Union of
India Versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr., reported in (1979) 3
SCC 4, where in para-10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-
-12- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities
mentioned above, the following principles
emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under Section
227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained the
Court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case
would naturally depend upon the facts of each
case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under
Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under
the present Code is a senior and experienced
court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however
does not mean that the Judge should make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial."
19. It has been further held in the case of Asim Shariff Versus
National Investigation Agency, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148, that
mini trial is not expected by the trial court for the purpose of
marshaling the evidence on record at the time of framing of record. It
has been held at paragraph No.18 of the said judgment, which reads as
under:
-13- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the
subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that
the Judge while considering the question of
framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in
sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239
CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or
not a prima facie case against the accused has
been made out; where the material placed
before the court discloses grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully
justified in framing the charge; by and large if
two views are possible and one of them giving
rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion against the accused, the trial
Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is
thus clear that while examining the discharge
application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is
expected from the trial Judge to exercise its
judicial mind to determine as to whether a case
for trial has been made out or not. It is true that
in such proceedings, the court is not supposed
to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence
on record."
20. There is no doubt that the learned trial court is required to
apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and will not act as mere
post-office and at the same time the court is also not required to made a
mini trial and if the satisfaction to that effect is there that there are
materials to frame the charge, the discharge petition is not to be
maintained, if the materials are there. It is further well settled that
defence on merit is not to be considered at the time of stage of framing
of charge and that cannot be a ground of discharge. Reference may be
made to the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Ashok Kumar Kashyap,
reported in (2021) 11 SCC 191.
21. Coming to the facts of the present case the materials have
come against the petitioner, which has been discussed hereinabove,
which has been discussed in paras- 14, 15 and 16 (Supra). Thus, there
are materials against the petitioners, which can be only the subject
matter of trial.
-14- Cr. Rev. No. 1556 of 2018
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1405 of 2018
22. The judgment relied by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in dispute. It is well settled
that if the case is made out, at any stage, the High Court can exercise its
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and even in a discharge petition under Sections
397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.
23. Recently that aspect of the matter has further been reiterated
in the case of State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbe
Gowda, [Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2023]. However, in the cases in
hand, materials are there, as such, no case of interference is made out.
Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
24. It is made clear that what has been discussed hereinabove,
that is only with regard to deciding the discharge petition and trial will
proceed in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
