M P ARUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the impugned order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class II, Port Blair in G.R.Case No.2090 of 2007, whereby after re-hearing the petitioner and the State, the learned Court once again rejected the prayer of the accused for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the Assistant Secretary (Passport) lodged complaint with the police alleging that the petitioner herein was asked to show cause as to why the passport facility would not be refused to him under the provisions of Section 6.2(f) of Passport Act, 1967. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein at the time of filing the application for passport on 22.2.2007, suppressed material facts, namely, the criminal cases were pending against him and that as regards his occupation, he described himself as a businessman, but, as a matter of fact, on the date of application, he was serving as Police Radio Operator. The accused person filed an application praying for discharge and the learned Magistrate rejected his prayer. Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved the revisional application in this Honble Court bearing No. C.R.R. 007 of 2010, which was allowed by the Honble Court setting aside the impugned order and directing the learned Magistrate to hear the application filed by the accused afresh. The learned Magistrate thereafter heard both sides afresh and passed the impugned order dated 16.7.2010.

(3.) The learned Magistrate observed that at the time of framing of the charge, the court would see whether there was prima-facie material to go into the trial or not and it was not the stage to weigh the evidence. The learned Magistrate observed that the factual aspects could be considered only after recording the evidence and rejected the petition filed by the accused praying for discharge. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused petitioner has filed the instant application