Delhi District Court
Gourab Kumar Saha vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMARII,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 371/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Gourab Kumar Saha,
S/o Sh. S.K. Saha,
R/o 84, Ist Floor, Uday Park,
New Delhi110049 ..........Revisionist
VERSUS
State (NCT of Delhi)
Through SHO
PS Amar Colony
New Delhi
..........Respondents
Instituted on: 16.08.2017
Reserved on: 29.09.2018
Pronounced on: 23.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition under Section 397/399 of the Code of CR No. 371/2017 Gourab Kumar Saha v. State Page no. 1 of 6 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed as the revisionist is aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate08, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in First Information Report No. 251/2010, Police Station Amar Colony, titled as "State v. Kazi Md. Arif" whereby charge against the revisionist was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 474/473/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 12 of the Passports Act, 1967.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revisionist has submitted that there were four accused persons but two accused persons have pleaded guilty and remaining two accused persons are facing trial. Only three rubber stamps and two passports are shown to have been recovered from the possession of the revisionist by the prosecution. Order on charge was passed on 10.01.2013 but charge was framed by impugned order dated 21.04.2017. There are no details have been mentioned in respect of passports which have been recovered from the possession of the revisionist. Offence under Section 474 IPC does not attract and only offence under Section 473 IPC attracts in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State/respondent has opposed the revision petition stating that offences under Sections 473/474 IPC and 12 of the Passports Act attracts against CR No. 371/2017 Gourab Kumar Saha v. State Page no. 2 of 6 the revisionist.
4. The learned trial court has passed impugned order at the stage of framing of charge. The charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 473/474 IPC, Section 14 Foreigners Act, Section 10/24 Emigration Act and Section 12 of the Passports Act. Hence, trial of warrant cases by Magistrates in cases instituted on a police report under Chapter XIX of Code is required to be followed. Section 239 of the Code provides for discharge of the accused and Section 240 for framing of charge. Now, question is what are required to be considered at that stage of framing of charge.
5. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.
CR No. 371/2017 Gourab Kumar Saha v. State Page no. 3 of 6
6. In a State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Others [(2008) SCC 239], Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine and access in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
7. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [Appeal (crl.) 497 of 2001 decided on 29.11.2014], Hon'ble three Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that all the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and shifting of evidence to prima facie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents produced by the prosecution and not the accused.
8. Hon'ble three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 285287 of 2015 decided on 11.02.2015] held that even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court CR No. 371/2017 Gourab Kumar Saha v. State Page no. 4 of 6 finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even where there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.
9. Hence, at the stage of framing of charge, it is not obligatory for the judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Even where there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.
10. As per the case of prosecution, 10 Bangladeshi passports and two Indian Passports and two applications for Visa were recovered from the possession of coaccused Kazi Mohd. Arif and the three Bangladeshi Passport and one Indian Passports and two stamps were recovered from CR No. 371/2017 Gourab Kumar Saha v. State Page no. 5 of 6 the possession of revisionistaccused Gourab Kumar Saha. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that rubber stamps recovered from the possession of revisionist were got verified from the Regional Passport Officer, R.K. Puram, Delhi and as per said record, same have been found to be forged. Order on charge was passed on 10.01.2013 and charge was framed by impugned order dated 21.04.2017 for the offences under Section 473/474/34 IPC and 12 of the Passports Act against the revisionist. Making or possession counterfeit seal, plate or other instruments for making an impression with intend to commit forgery is an offence under Section 473 IPC. Having possession of document described in Section 466 or 467 knowing to be forged and intending to use it as genuine is an offence under Section 474 IPC. Section 12 of the Passports Act provides for offences and penalties for several acts/contravention under the said Act including holding a forged passport or any travel document. Accusedrevisionist was found in possession of three Bangladeshi passports, one Indian Passport and two rubber stamps and hence, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly framed the charge against the revisionist for the offences under Section 473/474/34 IPC and Section 12 of the Passports Act. Hence, revision is dismissed.
Announced in the open court on 23.10.2018 (Sanjeev KumarII) Additional Session Judge05, South East, Saket Courts New Delhi CR No. 371/2017 Gourab Kumar Saha v. State Page no. 6 of 6