Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Pratima Behera to set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. Case No.43 of 2013 in rejecting the application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for discharge and framing charge under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said case arises out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.56 of 2009.

In case of A.R. Saravanan -Vrs.- State reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1140, it is held as follows:-

"7. Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the trial court to look into whether there is ground for presuming commission of offence or whether the charge is groundless. The trial court is required to see whether a prima facie case pertaining to the commission of offence is made out or not. At the stage of 239 of Cr.P.C., the trial court has to examine the evidence only to satisfy that prima facie case is made out or not. The Magistrate has to consider the report of the prosecution, documents of both sides, hear the arguments of the accused and prosecution and arrive at a conclusion that the materials placed, on their face value would furnish a reasonable basis or foundation for accusation.

In view of the above discussions, I am of the humble view that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and framing of charge under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(1))(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside. Anything said or any observation made in this judgment shall not influence the mind of the learned Trial Court to adjudicate the Trial in respect of co-accused Anil Kumar Sethi in accordance with law.