KANGUJAM ANANDA MEITEI Vs. CBI, SCB, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No.14 in S.T.No.34 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Judge, ND and PS, Manipur preferred against the order dated 3.4.2019, whereby ordering to frame charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 22(c) and 29 of ND and PS Act.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is manifestly wrong and as such it has led to miscarriage of justice and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to discharge as there are no materials/evidence to frame charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 22(c) and 29 of ND and PS Act against the petitioner. In fact, no presence of the essential ingredients of the offences were on record and no grounds for presuming that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. Further contention of the petitioner is the materials and documents produced by the prosecution cannot be said to be the facts attracting the ingredients of provisions in Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 22(c) and 29 of ND and PS Act. However, the learned Special Judge, without considering the relevant materials and the real involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime, wrongly ordered to frame charges against the petitioner also and if it is allowed to frame charges against the petitioner, he would put to much hardship and he has to unnecessarily face the trial of the case.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the CBI submitted that there are lot of materials to connect the petitioner with the other accused particularly accused No.3 for commission of the offence and having considered the statements of witnesses, the learned Special Judge has rightly framed charges against all the accused including the petitioner. Since the order of framing charges against the petitioner is in accordance with law, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Special Judge insofar as the petitioner is concerned. He would submit that the prosecution is ready to establish its case against the accused persons including the petitioner.