Orissa High Court
Hrushikesh Sarangi vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 20 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ2696
ORDER P.R. Tripathy, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 5-4- 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 29/10 of 1996 arising out of G.R. Case No. 101/95 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Sohella and now pending in the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Padampur vide S.T. No. 29/32 of 1996.
2. Heard.
In view of the argument advanced and the limited point which is required to be adjudicated, the fact involved in the case is not necessary to be stated.
3. Suffice for the purpose to note that charge sheet Under Sections 395, 397, 109 and 400 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was filed against five accused persons including the present petition. In the meantime, in Crl. Misc. Case No. 3327/95 Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code') petitioner prayed to quash the cognizance order. That case was disposed of with a direction that petitioner shall raise such point at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge. when the matter was taken up for consideration of charge on 8-4-97 petitioner advanced contention that there is no material available in the record to connect him with the alleged crime and prayed to be discharged Under Section 227 of the Code. After perusal of the case diary and upon hearing the parties learned trial Court rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground of existence of a prima facie case. Accordingly, charge was framed for the aforesaid offences. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge has stated that at the stage of consideration of charge, trial Court is not required to make meticulous analysis of the statement as is required to be done while considering the guilt or innocence of the accused at the conclusion of the trial and that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner besides the co-accused persons.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in view of the direction of this Court the ratio in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala reported in (1992) 5 OCR 66 : (1992 Cri LJ 3779) should have been followed. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel advanced argument defending the impugned order.
5. In the case of M.M. Mathew (supra), the Apex Court has held that even after issue of process Under Section 204 of the Code, if the accused can show non-existence of a prima facie case against him and pray to drop the proceeding such prayer cannot be refused.
6. The position of law is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance of offence of framing charge, Court is required to find out from the record if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In that connection the Apex Court in a recent decision, i.e., in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj 1997 Cri LJ 2248 : (AIR 1997 SC 2041) have held that:
The law on the subject is now well-settled, as pointed down Niranjan singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bijjaya (1990) 4 SCC 76 : (AIR 1990 SC 1962) : (1996 Cri LJ 1869), that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, lift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.
7. During the course of argument the findings of fact of the Assistant Sessions Judge regarding existence of a prima facie case from the existing material in the case diary has not been disputed and nothing has been pointed out how there is absence of a prima facie case. On the other hand, the trial Court has categorically recorded the finding that there exists a prima facie case, which finding has been recorded by him after due application of mind to the statements and other materials available in the case diary. Under such circumstance, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same is not liable to be interfered with.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is not admitted and dismissed at the stage of admission.
9. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the Sessions Case. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has no objection. In view of the said submission the trial Court is directed to complete the trial as far as practicable within two months hence.
The criminal revision is dismissed with the aforesaid direction.