Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs State Of Gujarat on 14 March, 2023
Date of Judgment :-14th March, 2023
Court :- HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEADABAD
CaseType :- R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 36 of 2022
Appellant :- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma
Respondent:- State of Gujarat
Bench :- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Referred:- Sections 173,226,227,228,239,397,482 of CrPC
Sections 11, 12, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 465, 467, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
FACTS OF THE CASE
It seems like the applicant is seeking discharge from the charges brought against them in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argues that there was no demand or bribe in the case and that the grant of NA (no objection) permission does not amount to an offense. The applicant also claims that the non-informing of the government about their spouse’s involvement in the partnership firm should not be considered an offense. Furthermore, the applicant states that the
Based on the information provided, it seems that Milak, along with his father Mr. Rajendra Milak, has been accused in a certain offense. However, the third partner, Mrs. Deepika Panneervel, who holds a majority share of 50%, has not been accused and is instead being treated as a witness.
In her recorded statement, Mrs. Panneervel claims that she is not acquainted with the applicant’s wife, which is deemed as unbelievable.
Based on this situation, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted an application requesting permission for something (the exact nature or purpose of the application is not clear from the information given).
The material presented must be capable of being translated into evidence during the trial stage. Strong suspicion cannot be based solely on the subjective satisfaction or moral notions of the judge, but should be backed by material that convinces the court that there is a prima facie case against the accused. These principles were discussed in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, where the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was considered.
According to the judgment in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, the court’s power in framing charges in a criminal case is discussed. The court is not required to meticulously judge the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence or consider the accused’s probable defense during the initial stage of the trial. The court should not weigh whether the facts, if proved, are incompatible with the accused’s innocence. Instead, if there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offense and there are sufficient grounds for presuming this, the court cannot say there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. However, this presumption of guilt is
Based on the information provided, it appears that an FIR has been registered against the applicant under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has been arrested and released on bail, and a charge sheet has been filed after investigation. The applicant has filed a discharge application, which has been rejected by the PMLA court. The applicant is now approaching this court.
The passage you have shared is from an order dated 14/03/2023 regarding the framing of charges in a criminal case. It discusses the procedure for framing a charge against an accused person in different types of cases – sessions cases, warrant cases, and summons cases. The purpose of framing a charge is to clearly and precisely inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against them.
Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) states that before the Court proceeds to frame the charge, the Public Prosecutor must present the case of the prosecution to the Court. This provision is often overlooked but is important in ensuring a fair trial.
In the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court discussed the principles relating to the framing of charges and discharge in a criminal case. The Court held that during the initial stage of the trial, the court should not meticulously judge the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence. The court should not consider in detail whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. The court should only consider whether there is a strong suspicion which leads to a presumption that the accused has committed an offense, and if so, there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. The court should sift through the material
The material presented must be able to be translated into evidence during the trial stage. Strong suspicion cannot be based purely on the subjective satisfaction or moral notions of the judge. It must be based on material that is sufficient to prima facie view that the accused has committed the offense.
The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case has been made against the accused. If there is grave suspicion that has not been explained, the court can justify framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. The court must consider the broad probabilities of the
In the given scenario, Mr. Milak, son of Mr. Rajendra Milak, is an accused in a case. However, the third partner, Mrs. Deepika Panneervel, who holds a major share of 50%, is not joined as an accused but is made a witness in the case. It is mentioned that her statement is recorded, where she claims to not know the wife of the applicant, which is deemed unbelievable.
The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present application should
In the case of Deepak, it was observed and held that at the stage of framing charges, the court should consider the material only to determine if there is a ground for presuming that the accused committed the offense. The High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to see if the facts disclosed at face value constitute the alleged offense. However, at this stage, the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence or consider the allegations on merits to decide
The highlighted portion of the text emphasizes that when considering the framing of charges in a criminal case, the judge has the power to examine the evidence and determine if a prima facie case against the accused has been made. If there is grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is justified in framing the charge. However, if there are two possible views and one only gives rise to suspicion (rather than grave suspicion), the judge may discharge the accused.
It is important for the trial judge to exercise their judicial mind and determine if a case for trial has been made out. The judge is not supposed to hold a mini-trial or review all the evidence at this stage. The court must consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the offense has been committed, rather than whether the accused should be convicted. The law does not permit a mini-trial at this
Based on the information provided, it appears that the applicant is facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested and later released on bail. A charge sheet has been filed, and the applicant has filed a discharge application, which was rejected by the court. The applicant argues that there was no demand or bribe in the case, and the grant of NA permission does not amount to an offense.
In the present case, Milak, the son of Mr. Rajendra Milak who is a 20% partner, is accused in an offense. However, the third partner, Mrs. Deepika Panneervel, who holds a 50% share in the company, is not joined as an accused but is made a witness. Her statement, in which she claims to not know the wife of the applicant, is considered unbelievable.
The applicant’s advocate has submitted an application to allow the present application.
In the case of Deepak (supra), as explained by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the court stated that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider the material to determine if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed the offense. The High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to see if they disclose the existence of all the elements of the alleged offense, taking the facts at face value. The court also emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to appreciate the evidence on record or consider the allegations on their merits, or to determine the likelihood of conviction of the accused against whom the charge is framed.
JUDGMENT
While rejecting the discharge application of the R/CR.RA/36/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023 applicant, learned trial court has specifically observed that prima facie involvement of the present applicant is made out for the alleged offences and at this stage, it is required to be noted that at this juncture, the innocence or guilty of the accused is not required to be decided, but the prima facie sufficient material is on record for framing the charge of alleged offences is required to be considered. Learned trial court has further observed that all the important aspects relating to the case are required to be tried and then after the same has been appreciated according to law, but at this stage the prosecution has completely made out the prima facie case against the present applicant for the alleged offence.
It appears from the record that at this stage, on the basis of the charge sheet and documents produced with it, court should have to take decision. The defence taken and evidences produced by the accused should not be considered at this stage. At the present stage, it is to see that whether prima facie offence is there against the accused or not and evaluation of evidence produced by the accused and evaluation of the evidence should not be considered at this stage. It appears that at the time of framing charge, the court should have to consider the evidence produced before the court and not to make evaluation thereof.
This court is of the considered view that at the stage of framing of charge, court will not have to weight the evidence as it would only see as to whether prima facie case has been made out or not and while considering the observations made by learned trial court while rejecting the discharge application of the applicant that prima facie case has been established by the prosecution against the applicant, this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the applicant.
Thus, considering the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and present revision is liable to be rejected and accordingly, stands rejected. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months preferably on day to day basis.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Anshika Srivastava of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments