STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. ROHIDAS HARI VAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the order dated 7.11.2003 of the learned J.M.F.C., Quepem discharging the respondent/accused under Sections 463/465, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. and the order dated 7.7.2005 of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision filed by the State against the said order of discharge.

(2.) THE extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court was invoked on behalf of the State essentially because the change of law arising from the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 297 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 188 : (2005)1 SCC 568, by which the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra was overruled and now it has been held by the Apex Court that at the stage of framing of charge the accused is not entitled to produce documents and on the basis of the documents so produced the accused cannot be discharged. However, it is now seen that there are more issues than one, involved which resulted in the discharge of the accused and in such a situation this Court will not permit the extraordinary jurisdiction to be invoked only on a mere technicality that in discharging the accused the learned J.M.F.C. had looked into the documents produced by the accused at the stage of framing of charge.

(3.) ONLY or about 31.1.2002 a complaint came to be filed by the Chief Officer Venancio Furtado at a time when the accused was no longer the Chairperson of the said Curchorem-Cacora Municipal Council. but was only a Councillor. The said Chief Officer in the said complaint/FIR dated 31.1.2002 alleged that the accused as the Chairperson had no authority to change the name of Dharma Shirodkar in place of Tulshidas Shirodkar as recorded on the Demand and Collection of House Tax Register of the said Municipality. The complaint further alleged that the accused as the then Chairperson had committed the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C.