SRI JEETENDRA KUMAR MEDIRATTA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.

(2.) The Petitioner calls in question the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No. 32 of 1994 whereunder charge was framing against the Petitioner for commission of alleged offence under Sec. 406 I.P.C. Petitioner during farming of charge filed an application under Sec. 227, Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge him. The said application being rejected, the Petitioner approached this Court in Crl. Revision No. 100 of 2009. This Court by an elaborate judgment dated 7.2.2009 dismissed the said revision taking note of the contention of Mr. Padhi that it is a well settled position of law that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to apply his mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused and the Court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the materials brought on record would reasonably connect the accused with the offence and as such at that stage the Court is required to apply the test of prima facie case only. After dismissal of the said revision by this Court, the impugned order has been passed framing the charge against the Petitioner under Sec. 228, Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner has challenging the said order of framing charge in the present application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Mr. S.D. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on a decision in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v/s. Vijaya Satardekar and Ors. reported in : 2009 Cri.L.J. 822 and submits that the Supreme Court has laid down in the said decision that in an application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure this Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. The Supreme Court in the said decision analysing the provision of Ss. 227 & 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing charge and only such material as indicated in Sec. 227, Code of Criminal Procedure can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. The Supreme Court also held that in a proceeding taken there from under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. While holding thus, the Supreme Court referred to the larger Bench decision in the case of State of Orissa v/s. Debendra Nath Padhi : (2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein the larger Bench made a conscious distinction between a proceeding under Sec. 227 Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court and a proceeding under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court and made a reference to the Court's power to consider material other than those produced by the prosecution in a proceeding under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure The larger Bench further held that if the accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of his innocence at the stage of framing of charge, was to be accepted, it would be unsettling a law well settled over a hundred years. The larger Bench therefore arrived at a definite conclusion that the expression "hearing the submissions of accused" cannot mean an opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. Thus at the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused as provided under Sec. 227/228, Code of Criminal Procedure has to be confined to the material produced by the police.

(3.) In the judgment passed in the Criminal revision by this Court wherein the order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the application of the Petitioner for being discharged was confirmed this Court examined the materials on the basis of which the charge was framed. I therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and analyse the voluminous documents produced by the Petitioner along with this application under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to test as to whether the charge framed against him by the Court below in the impugned order can be interfered with or not. More so, in the larger Bench decision in the case of State of Orissa v/s. D.N. Padhi (supra), the Supreme Court observed that in the case before it the question involved was not about the jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code where along with the petition the accused may file unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality and on that basis seek quashing, but it is about the right claimed by the accused to produce material at the stage of framing charge. In the instant case, the documents produced along with the application under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be classified to be of unimpeachable and sterling quality. Such material produced by the Petitioner can be appreciated during trial if produced and proved by the defence. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.