STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. ASHOKE KUMAR SUBBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-Ashoke Kumar Subba one of the managing partners of M/s. Bindhya Agency, entered into an agreement on 8-1-1993 with the State of Tripura for conducting Tripura State Lottery as an agent. In terms of the agreement, the accused-Ashoke Kumar Subba did not obtain the approval of the State Government for the scheme and fixed 14-2-1993 as the date of lottery draws. The State of Tripura through Shri D. Chakraborty, Director, Small Savings, Group Insurance and Institutional Finance, Government of Tripura, Agartala, on 16-2-1993 lodged an FIR, culminating in filing of chargesheet under Ss. 468, 469, 420 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons, namely, Ashoke Kumar Subba, Basanta Subba and Majid Khan, opposite parties in the present revision petition. The accused persons were put on trial before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura district who by his order dated 14-12-1995 under S. 239, Cr. P.C. finding the charge as groundless and further that the dispute is of civil nature, has discharged all the 3 accused persons. The State of Tripura by way of present revision has grievance against the said discharge order.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Tripura. Also heard Mr. K. H. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel along with Mr. A. C. Bhowmik and Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the State is that at the stage of framing charge under Section 239, Cr.P.C. the Court is required to see whether a prima facie case regarding commission of certain offence is made out. The question whether the charges will eventually stand proved or not should be determined only after the evidence is recorded during the trial (vide AIR 1987 SC 773 : (1987 Cri LJ 709), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Krishan Lal Pardhan and (1989) 1 SCC 715, Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was not at all justified in discharging the accused persons without taking the evidence on the record. The accused persons have violated the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, further they have forged the signature of the informant Director Shri D. Chakraborty, by transplanting the signature from some other documents of the printed lottery tickets. The State of Tripura did not accord approval to the schemes of lottery draw and as stated in the FIR the informant Director was surprised to know about the date of draws only through the newspapers dated 16-2-93.