Shri Parmeshwaran Subramani vs State

A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.

By this revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07/06/2010 passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Special Case No. 5/2003 by which the charge u/s 13(1)(d) and 13(2) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, was explained to the accused. The present petitioner, who is the accused No. 1 in the said case, challenged the order primarily on the ground that the charge was explained to the accused without hearing arguments regarding framing of charge. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent discloses that the application dated 13/07/2010 filed by the present petitioner, has been dismissed by order dated 22/11/2010

Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 07/06/2010 charge was explained by learned Special Judge without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein and this was necessary having regard to the fact that initially by order dated 06/01/2006, the petitioner was discharged. Mr. Nadkarni further submitted that learned Special Judge has also not decided the application dated 21/03/2005 filed by the petitioner herein.

Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent has not seriously disputed that learned Special Judge had not heard the parties afresh before explaining the charge on 07/06/2010 and that the application dated 21/03/2005, has not been disposed of by learned Special Judge.

Perusal of the record discloses that initially learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji by order dated 06/01/2006 discharged the petitioner for want of sanction which order was maintained by this Court in revision preferred by CBI. However, the Apex Court, by the judgment and order dated 11/09/2009, set aside the order passed by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Since the order of the learned Special Judge had merged in the order of the High Court which order has been set aside by the Supreme Court, learned Special Judge was required to hear again the accused before passing the order regarding framing of charge. That being the position, the order dated 07/06/2010 explaining charge to the accused which is impugned in this application, is hereby set aside. Learned Special Judge shall explain charge to the accused. Learned Special Judge shall also consider the application dated 21/03/2005 filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order disposing of the same. The revision application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.