DILLIP KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Dillip Kumar Mohanty under section 401 Crimial P.C. for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by Smt. S.S. Mishra, learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No. 1409 of 2016 in framing charges under sections 409/420/467/468/471/477-A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On 28.03.2016 on the First Information Report of one Rama Chandra Muduli, Administrative Officer, Office of the Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar, E.O.W., Bhubanewswar P.S. Case No.6 of 2016 was registered under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and on completion of investigation, preliminary charge sheet was submitted on 23.07.2016 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) Crimial P.C. and accordingly, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar took cognizance of such offences and the case record was handed over to the Dealing Assistant for preparation of police papers and intimation was given to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and as soon as possible to submit final charge sheet.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath contended that though in the impugned order, it is mentioned that after hearing both the sides on the point of charge, the charge was framed but in fact no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He further contended that when on the very date, the police papers consisting of 223 sheets were supplied to the petitioner, the learned Trial Court should have given some time to the petitioner to go through the same and consult his advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that since everything was done hurriedly, the petitioner could not get an opportunity to file an application under section 239 of Crimial P.C. for discharge and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same should be set aside and an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to file an application for discharge which should be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.