Dismissed

Smt Chandra Bala v. State of Raj

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2013CRLR/108/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S.B. Criminal Revision Petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the revisional order which set aside the trial court's discharge. The court held that the trial court violated the limited scope of remand and upheld the revisional court's finding of a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition and stay application dismissed; order of revisional court setting aside discharge upheld.

Smt Chandra Bala Vs State of Raj — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.108/2005

Smt. Chandra Bala

Versus

State of Rajasthan

DATE OF ORDER : 07/01/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr. A.K. Gupta, for petitioner Mr. Laxman Meena, P.P.

¶9

¶10

By this revision petition, a challenge is made to the order dt.24^th January, 2005 by which order passed by the trial court discharing petitioner is set aside.

¶11

It is stated that initially charges were framed against petitioner, however, on a revision, matter was remanded as during pendency of the matter, a report was submitted by S.K. Dalela. It is indicating as to how amount was deposited which was said to have been misappropriated. On remand, matter was considered by the trial court and thereupon petitioner was discharged taking note of entire amount said to have been misappropriated. The State Government thereafter preferred a revision petition to challenge the order of discharge. It has been allowed by impugned order.

¶12

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that trial court considered the issue entirely and finding case in favour of

¶13

¶14

petitioner, discharged her from the charges. The initiation of the matter was at the instance of petitioner when she made complaints about misappropriation of money at the instance of certain officials of the department. After investigation and while submitting charge sheet, petitioner was also made accused. It was in ignorance of the fact that due amount was deposited through draft and cash, thus, mens rea of petitioner was not proved so as to find commission of offence in her hand. The trial court meticulously considered the matter and taking note of entire facts, discharged the petitioner, thus, interference should not have been made by revisional court unless likelihood of conviction exists. A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy,

¶15

reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 has been given to support the arguments. It is accordingly prayed that order passed by revisional court may be set aside while maintaining order of the trial court discharging the petitioner.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by revisional court.

¶17

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶18

This case has a chequered history inasmuch as matter was heard and decided by the trial court on two occasions for framing charges. Last order is on remand by revisional court. In

¶19

¶20

view of the remand, trial court was expected to consider the matter limited to the issue given therein. I find that contrary to the order passed for remand by revisional court, the court below considered the case entirely and discharged the petitioner ignoring remand on a limited issue.

¶21

It is a case where allegation against petitioner is regarding commission of offence under Section 409 and 409/120B IPC for a sum of Rs.4,94,843/-. While maintaining first revision petition by petitioner, a reference of report given by S.K. Dalela was made wherein it came that a sum of Rs.1,32,270/- and Rs.1,26,000/- was deposited. Thus, while remanding matter, it was kept limited to aforesaid amounts only out of the total amount of Rs.4,94,843/-. The revisional court was cautious enough while remanding matter that if justification come for an amount of Rs.1,32,270/- and Rs.1,26,000/- then charges may be framed with modification. Ignoring the limited remand for the amount of Rs.1,32,270/- and Rs.1,26,000/-, petitioner was discharged from allegation of entire amount. The court below travelled beyond direction given by revisional court to discharge petitioner for entire amount. In view of the above, revision was maintained by State Government and revisional court not only considered the aforesaid aspect in regard to limited remand in the first revision, but further took noticed that even if Rs.1,32,270/- and Rs.1,26,000/- were later deposited by

¶22

¶23

the petitioner, it does not show her innocence. The court below was under an obligation to look into the issue as to why those amounts were deposited if not misappropriated, even if S.K. Dalela's report is taken on its face. Considering the matter from all angles, a detailed and well considered order has been passed by revisional court to set aside the order where the petitioner was discharged.

¶24

In view of above and taking note of well considered order by revisional court, room of interference does not exist.

¶25

Learned Counsel has made a reference of judgment Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy (supra) to support his arguments and to indicate that revisional court should not interfere in the order of discharge unless it comes to the conclusion that petitioner can be convicted. I find that while hearing matter for framing of charge or to reverse it, prima facie case is to be looked into. It is in the light of the fact that final conclusion can be drawn after trial where evidence is led by the parties. In any case, a detailed order has been passed on revision indicates as to how a prima facie case exists in regard to amount of Rs.4,94,843/- for commission of offence under Section 409 and 409/120B IPC. The court has also supplied the reason for it rather if the first revisional order is looked into, then it is sufficient to show as to whether the case is made against petitioner or not. It was noticed by

¶26

¶27

revisional court on the first occasion that petitioner was a government servant holding the post at relevant time and was instrument of withdrawing the amount in question. After taking note of that material, revisional court found prima facie case against petitioner regarding amount of Rs.4,94,843/-. The matter was yet remanded limited to the amount of Rs.1,32,270/- and Rs.1,26,000/- and that too in the light of the report submitted by S.K. Dalela and not otherwise. If the first order of revisional court is looked into, the case is made against petitioner for framing of charges. I am convinced that just and proper order has been passed by revisional court to set aside the order of trial court discharging petitioner. Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the order of the revisional court.

¶28

This revision petition is found devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.

¶29

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

¶30

FRBOHRA/108CRLREVPET2005.doc

¶31

Certificate:

¶32

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶33

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.

Smt Chandra Bala v. State of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chandra Bala v. State of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs State and Anr.

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs State and Ors.

Niyamat Ali Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Munshi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Mahesh Pareek Vs State

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.