TANKADHAR MISHRA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Tankadhar Mishra has challenged the order dated 16.12.2011 of the learned Special Judge, (CBI), Bhubaneswar passed in T.R. Case No. 39 of 2010 in framing charge under sections 120-B/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) It appears from the impugned order that on the date of framing of charge, the counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo stating therein that the petitioner has got no objection if the charge is framed against him in his absence and accordingly, learned Special Judge after going through the materials available on record was of the view that there are sufficient materials to presume that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have committed the offence under sections under sections 120-B/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath files an additional affidavit annexing a copy of discharge petition in Court today which is taken on record. It is the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 5 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988, a Special Judge is required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates. He further contends that Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C. deals with trial of warrant cases by Magistrates and while framing charge, it is the requirement of law that charge should be read over and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.