CHITARANJAN PATNAIK Vs. V. RATURAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused in G. R. Case No. 471/85 and against whom charges have been framed under Sections 468 /471/477 -A/409/34. I.P.C., by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the said charges.

(2.) MR . Swain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner raises the following contentions in support of the plea of quashing of charges:

(3.) COMING to the first contention, Mr. Swain relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1489, where the Supreme Court was considering an order of discharge of accused passed under Section 227 of the Code. It may be noted that under Section 227 if upon considerations of the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, a Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so, doing. The language of Section 227 is unambiguous and, therefore, it is obligatory on the Judge to record his reasons for passing an order of discharge. It is in that context the Supreme Court, observed in the aforesaid case that the object of the provisions requiring the Sessions Judge to record the reasons is to enable the superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. According to Mr. Swain, the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court also indicate that even where a charge is framed the Judge must record his reasons so that those reasons can be tested by a higher forum. Power to frame charge is contained in Section 228 of the. Code and reading Section 228 as it is, I do not find any requirement of 'recording reasons. It is no doubt true that Sections 227 and 228 have to be read together in jukta position and therefore, the Sessions Judge is required to sift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose to find out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. In otherwords at that stage the Sessions Judge is required to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court as well as any basic infirmity appearing in the case. Under Section 228 if the Judge is satisfied after applying his judicial mind to the records of the case, there is ground for presuming that the accused has prima facie committed an offence, then he would be free to frame the charge and in my opinion, it is not necessary at that stage to give a detailed discussion of the materials or to give a finding which would be a matter for the trial. In that view of the matter, and applying my mind to the impugned order whereunder charges have been framed in the case, I do not find any infirmity in the same and Mr. Swain 's contention on 'this score cannot be accepted.