Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent - CBI registered the case in RC.17(A)/2012 on 13.09.2012 against accused No.1 - the then Port Conservator, Belekeri Port, Ankola and others for the offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 406, 409, 379, 411 and 447 of IPC and sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and took up investigation. On conclusion of the investigation, a final report dated 17.11.2013 was placed before the Special Court. On considering the charge sheet and the material produced in support of the charges levelled therein, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the above offences and issued summons to petitioners and other accused.

It is argued that in the absence of any patent errors of jurisdiction, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

12. Refuting the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners that the Trial Court has failed to analyse and sift the evidence produced by the Investigating Agency, learned Special Public Prosecutor has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU, HYDERABAD & Another vs. P.SURYAPRAKASAM, 1999 SCC (Cri) 373, with reference to para 5 wherein it is held as under:-

31. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF ORISSA vs. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in para 16, has summarized the position of law as under:-

"All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting 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. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition. This aspect, however, has been adverted to in State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and Another v. P. Suryaprakasam [1999 SCC (Crl.) 373] where considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code it was held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial court is required to, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that."