PANDURANG SAGUN SALGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application by original accused No. 9 is directed against the order dated 24th July 1996 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji, in Special Criminal Case No. 1/92. The learned Judge directed framing of charges against the accused, including accused No. 9 as he found that there was sufficient material for doing so. Accordingly, he framed charges against the accused. Accused No. 9 was charged for the offences punishable under S. 120-B, 408 read with S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under S. 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved thereby accused No. 9 has preferred this revision application.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the prosecution in question may be stated in brief as fol-lows :-

(3.) BEFORE framing charge, the learned Special Judge heard both the sides. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and after perusing the police papers, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material to frame charges against the accused. In the present revision application I am concerned only with regard to the case against accused No. 9. The learned Judge having found that there was sufficient material even against the accused No. 9, charged him along with other accused for having committed the offences mentioned above. It is this order which is challenged in this revision application.