High Court of Delhi

Ashok Bhaduria v. State

MANU/DE/3331/2016

15.12.2016

Criminal

While framing charges Court is required to discuss material on record to show its application of mind in framing of charge

Aggrieved by common order on charge and the charge framed under Sections 420/467/ 468/448/120-B/109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) present revision petitions have been preferred by Petitioners. In the order dated 2nd March, 2007, it was observed by trial Court that “At this stage, detail discussion is not required......” Petitioner argued that neither allegations nor reasoning having concurrence with same have been recorded by trial court while passing the order on charge. Further, order under challenge is a non-speaking order.

Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) provides for discharge of an accused in a case where if upon consideration of record of case and documents submitted therewith and after hearing submission of accused and prosecution, Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. When no case for discharge of an accused as provided under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is made out, then Court is to frame charge as provided in Section 228 of Cr.P.C.

In case of P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala AIR 2010 SC 663, Apex Court observed that at time of framing charge, Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame charge, but has to exercise his judicial mind to facts of case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by prosecution. Sufficiency of ground would take within its fold nature of evidence recorded by police or documents produced before Court which prima facie disclosed that there were suspicious circumstances against accused.

In instant case, trial Court did not consider it necessary to discuss merits of case. It has been recorded in impugned order that as far as individual allegations and role played by accused are being mentioned in detail in charge, therefore there is no need to repeat same in order. Trial court straightway recorded conclusion that, accused are liable to be charged under Sections 420/467/468/448/ 120-B/109 of IPC. Order on charge must atleast contain materials on basis of which prima facie view is made out that, accused has committed alleged offence as provided in Sections 212 and 213 Cr.P.C. in relation to each of accused. Non-mentioning of material at time of passing order on charge leads to un-sustainability of order in eyes of the law.

It is a settled law that, Court at time of framing charge is required to discuss material on record to show its application of mind to reach to conclusion of sufficiency of material to frame charge. Court may not write lengthy order describing entire material mentioned in charge sheet but there must be something on face of the order from where it could be gauged that there is application of mind. This Court opined that, Trial Judge need to exercise again jurisdiction to pass fresh reasoned order. Non-sustainability of order on charge culminates into acceptance of these revision petitions and setting aside order on charge and charge framed by trial court. Present revision petitions are allowed with observation that, trial Court shall pass fresh order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

Relevant

P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala AIR 2010 SC 663, Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Tags : Charge Framing Sufficiency of material

Share :