Quashed

State v. Md.Abdur Razaque

Orissa HC11 Apr 2018CRLMC/1323/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC challenging the Special Judge's order discharging the accused in a Prevention of Corruption case. The court held the order exceeded the charge stage by requiring evidence. The discharge order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh framing of charge.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of discharge dated 07.11.2001 was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack to hear the matter on framing of charge again.

State Vs Md.Abdur Razaque — Corruption | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

CRLMC No.1323 of 2004

¶2

11.04.2018

¶3

Heard Mr. Pani, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department and Mrs. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶4

Challenge has been made to the order of discharge of the accused from the charge of the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention and Corruption of the Act.

¶5

Mr. Pani, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the grounds taken by the learned trial Court is against the principle of law. According to him, the impugned order has been passed as if it was considering the evidence for judgment after trial is completed which is not the spirit of law at the time of framing of charge. He further submits that during investigation before the charge sheet submitted, the I.O. was changed and different aspect of investigation was considered after which the charge sheet has been submitted. So question of part of the preliminary I.O. or the later I.O. to take view to add some income or not should not have been considered by the learned trial Court. 4. Mrs. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the income of the petitioner has not been properly dealt with so as to be reaching a conclusion whether there was disproportionate assets. She further submits that the revision would lie, but not the Criminal Misc. Case as the order is revisable.

¶6

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the impugned order dated 07.11.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vig.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.7 of 1996 which runs to four pages and the extract of the last part of impugned order is

placed below:-

Xx xx xx xx

“In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that no prima facie made out against the accused for requiring the alleged disproportionate assets by illegal means during his incumbency as public servant and the check period. Hence, no charge can be framed against the accused. As such, he is discharged.”

¶11

From the aforesaid order, it shows that the learned trial Court has gone through the documents seized by the State Vigilance. It is well settled in law at the time of framing of charge, the Court is to apply its judicial mind to the material on record and frame the charge. He is not expected to travel beyond the records produced before him. It is a fact that on the point of the charge or discharge, the accused should be heard, but since it is a case under the Prevention and Corruption Act, the question of adducing evidence or adducing documents by the accused at the time of framing of charge perhaps does not arise.

¶12

It is settled in law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is expected to find out the role of the accused by going through the material produced before him by the prosecution. The Court is not required to go deep to find out whether accused is guilty or not after conclusion of the trial. On the other hand, at the time of framing of charge Court should not scan material in detail like in trial but to read same to find out a prima facie case but not conclusive opinion on evidence. In the instant case, although the lengthy order of discharge passed but many matter discussed in that order requires evidence to be adduced. Hence, the order dated 7.11.2001 cannot be accepted and accordingly quashed.

¶13

¶14

The matter is remitted back to the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack who would hear the matter on framing of charge again and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, without being influenced any of the observation made above.

¶15

The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶17

………………………… Dr.D.P.Choudhury, J.

¶18

State v. Md.Abdur Razaque

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Md.Abdur Razaque

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Sudarshan Parida Vs State of Orissa

Purna Ch.Pati Vs State of Orissa

Bharat Behera Vs Gyanaranjan Das

Superintending Engineer Electrical Vs Dist.Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,Boudh

Manoj Ku.Agrawal Vs Odisha Information Commission