Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In order to give a bird's eye view, brief facts would be necessary. The record goes to show that the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ACB) and Economic Offences Wing (for short EOW) had registered an FIR on 12.2.2015 after conducting a raid in the head office of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Raipur, known as Nagrik Aapurti Nigam (for short, NAN) and also at some of the residential premises of the employees and officers of NAN. In such raid, cash amounts were recovered from few of the officers and persons. It is alleged that the said persons along-with other officers of NAN were carrying out organized activities whereby different rice millers were forced to pay the amounts for acceptance of rice for the custom milling by the State otherwise the goods were refused to be accepted by citing various reasons by the officers of the State. After the investigation, 16 persons were charge- sheeted and two officers remained for want of permission of sanction for prosecution. However, it was submitted by the State that subsequent sanction has been granted for prosecution. During the course of trial, accused Kaushal Kishore Yadu who is applicant in Criminal Revision No.403 of 2016 filed application under Sections 193 & 319 of Cr.P.C., and accused Sudhir Kumar Bhole who is an applicant in Cr.Revision No. 484 of 2016 moved an application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., wherein prayer was made to implead the other persons in the array of accused whose names were initially found in the FIR. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 13.04.2016. Against such order the revision was preferred before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision and directed that Girish Sharma who is respondent No.3, Arvind Singh who is respondent no.4 and Jeet Ram Yadav who is respondent no.5 to be made as an accused and the trial was ordered to be commenced against them. Against such order, the respondent went to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 23rd August, 2017 has set aside such order of the High Court and remanded the revision for fresh adjudication.

16. Per contra, Shri J.K.T. Gilda learned Advocate General appears on behalf of the State/respondents 1 & 2 and defending the order of the Court would would submit that this Court has to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 397 of Cr.P.C., and has to appreciate what was the material available on the date when the trial Court has passed the order. It is contended that on 24.07.2015, the application u/s 319 and 193 of Cr.P.C., was filed and the prayer was only confined to make the respondent accused by virtue of section 319 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the State has taken a categorical stand that it is the prerogative of the State to implead any accused or prosecute him and however the power is vested with the Court whether to add any person as accused or not. He refers to a decision rendered in AIR 2017 SC 540 [Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India] and would submit that the loose documents on which the applicants rely cannot be accepted as evidence.

17. It is further contended that only challenge in this revision is part of the order passed u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, having made submission before the Supreme Court that the case do not fall u /s 319 of Cr.P.C., they are estopped to challenge the order before this Court. It is further submitted that as per the case law reported in 2010 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal (Ashok Ghanshyam Kamble Vs. CBI) the application for joining a particular person cannot be made by other accused. It is prerogative of the prosecution to file such application. He further submits that the rejection of application u/s 319 was before framing of the charge since the validity of the order has to be adjudged on the date of application, the charges having been framed and 4 witnesses having already been examined, the stage for such prayer has already been passed. Further referring to a case law reported in (2000) 3 SCC 262 - Michael Machado Vs. C.B.I., it is submitted that the power u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., can only be invoked after the evidence is collected during trial and in this case the evidence is being recorded after filing of the application, therefore, the same is not tenable. He further refers to (2014) 3 SCC page 92 - Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and would submit that the ratio in this case has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the court can only exercise power u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., only after the trial proceeds and commences with recording of evidence. Going thorough the judgment he would submit that the prima facie case has to be established from the evidence led before the Court and it should be strong enough to ultimately hold conviction.

18. It is further contended by the State that section 319 of Cr.P.C., does not give right to the accused person who are facing trial to move an application seeking impleadment of another accused i.e., the present accused/ respondents 3 to

5. Referring to AIR 1968 Bombay 400 , Lakshman Das Chaganlal Bhatia Vs. The State it is contended that the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., are enabling one for joinder of an accused which do not give right to other accused to insist to be joined as accused. It is further submitted that the accused do not get a right to challenge the order of the Court wherein an application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., was dismissed by way of revision unless it adversely affects the right of the person making the request. He referred to (2007) 14 SCC 783 Paul Varghese Vs. State of Kerala and would submit that in absence of any sanction, the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked.