Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This criminal revision case is filed by the accused under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2012 in C.C.No.24 of 2010 passed by II Additional Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad, dated 18.06.2013, filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'P.C. Act').

The petitioner being the sole accused filed Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2012 before the II Additional Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad under Section 239 Cr.P.C, alleging that, while the petitioner was discharging his official duties as Medical Superintendent of Railway Poly Clinic, accepted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration and as such he committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. The petitioner was served with the copies of the documents a required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and such documents and statements do not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner muchless the offences alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. It is also contended that the charge sheet does not disclose any official favour that was pending with the petitioner as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and the statements of various MSM,J CrlRC_1606_2013 witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the alleged offences committed by this petitioner.

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, investigation was conducted by Sri K.A.A. Kalam, Inspector, CBI, who is authorized to do so, and, the investigation is not vitiated by any illegality or irregularity, unless it is done with any motive, prejudice or if any miscarriage of justice is caused to the petitioner/A-1, thereby, it is not a ground to exercise power under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge this petitioner/A-1 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(e) of P.C. Act, since the petitioner/A-1 did not plead any such miscarriage of justice either before the Trial Court or before this Court to avail the benefit of this judgment. Moreover, such miscarriage of justice or prejudice is a question of fact to be determined at the end of trial and such questions cannot be decided at this stage, while deciding an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C to discharge this petitioner/A-1.

IN RE POINT NO.2 Before adverting to the contentions raised before this Court it is apposite to examine the scope of Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., with reference to Section 239 Cr.P.C.

MSM,J CrlRC_1606_2013 The present revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is limited.

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in various judgments referred supra as to considering an application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C, at the stage of framing charges, the duty of the Court is only to look into allegations made in the final report and the documents annexed to it including statements of witnesses recorded and examined during investigation, and afford an opportunity to the accused to advance arguments. But said argument must be connected to the material on record i.e., allegations in charge sheet and documents filed along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, not more than that. The accused is not entitled to produce any documents and adduce any evidence at the MSM,J CrlRC_1606_2013 time of framing charges or at the time of disposal of petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C.