Prem Bada Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Vijay Lakshmi, J—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi, in Case No. 1514 of 2013, Santosh Verma Vs. Prem Bada Singh and others, under section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal because no offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. Learned counsel has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 entered into an agreement to sell with co-accused Ram Singh alias Pintoo Singh and paid him Rs. Three Lakhs. Neither any agreement to sell was executed by the revisionist nor any amount was received by her. However, co-accused Ram Singh @ Pintoo Singh has already returned an amount of Rs. 280000/- to the opposite party No. 2 due to his failure to get the sale deed executed in favour of O.P. No. 2.

On the aforesaid grounds it is prayed by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 8.5.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has contended that the Court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionist, and there is no illegality in it.

The Sessions Judge has the power to discharge the accused in the following circumstances;

A. where the evidence produced is not sufficient,

B. where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused,

C. where the prosecution is clearly barred by limitation, or

D. where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of High Court.

The impugned order shows that the Court below has elaborately discussed in it, the prima facie evidence available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court concerned is sufficient and the Courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the Court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.

In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 : (2005) 99 CLT 348 : (2005) 1 CTC 134 : (2004) 10 JT 303 : (2004) 10 SCALE 50 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 : (2004) AIRSCW 6813 : (2004) 8 Supreme 568 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.

In Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, AIR 2007 SC 2149 : (2007) CriLJ 3257 : (2007) 7 JT 181 : (2007) 7 SCALE 25 : (2007) 5 SCC 403 : (2007) 6 SCR 324 : (2007) 2 UJ 696 : (2007) AIRSCW 3683 : (2007) 4 Supreme 280 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.

In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others, AIR 2009 SC 9 : (2009) CriLJ 338 : (2008) 11 JT 460 : (2008) 13 SCALE 133 : (2008) 10 SCC 681 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge.

In Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1507 : (2001) CriLJ 1723 : (2001) 2 Crimes 59 : (2001) 3 JT 585 : (2001) 2 SCALE 505 : (2001) 4 SCC 333 : (2001) 2 SCR 482 : (2001) AIRSCW 1230 : (2001) 2 Supreme 423 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.

Hon''ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. C.B.I. 2000 (41) ACC 266 (SC), has held that at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding the said statements existing in the case diary as unreliable.

In Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522 : (2000) CriLJ 746 : (2000) 1 JT 13 : (2000) 1 SCALE 19 : (2000) 1 SCC 722 : (2000) 1 SCR 27 : (2000) AIRSCW 52 : (2000) 1 Supreme 6 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons.

In State of J & K v. Sudarshan Khakkar 1997 (35) ACC 414 (SC) , and in Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others, AIR 2009 SC 1013 : (2009) CLT 104 : (2009) CriLJ 822 : (2008) 11 JT 32 : (2008) 13 SCALE 523 : (2008) 14 SCC 1 : (2009) AIRSCW 118 , it has been held that no weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to confine its attention to documents referred to under section 173 Cr.P.C. only.

In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record against the revisionist, discussed in detail by the Court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the Court below be directed to release the applicant on bail, if possible on the same day, and the trial proceedings be also directed to be expedited and to be concluded within a stipulated period.

As expeditious disposal of a case is the right of a litigant, the Court below is directed to proceed with the case and try to bring the trial to its logical end without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and to conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible, within six months from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is further directed that if the revisionist appears and surrenders before the Court below within thirty days from today and applies for bail, her bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously keeping in view the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 1 AWC 416 : (2005) CriLJ 755 : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 155 , approved by Hon''ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2009) 7 JT 327 : (2009) 4 SCALE 77 : (2009) 4 SCC 437 : (2009) 4 SCR 1027 : (2009) 4 UJ 1588 .