9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 1049 - SC - Indian LawsPower of Magistrate to frame the charge - discharge of the accused on the ground that the charge is groundless - Whether, even before any evidence is led u/s 244 CrPC, can the Magistrate straightaway proceed to frame a charge - HELD THAT - It must be, at this stage, borne in mind that the word used in Section 246 CrPC is evidence , so also, in Section 244 CrPC, the word used is evidence . Therefore, ordinarily, the scheme of the Section 246 CrPC is that, it is only on the basis of any evidence that the Magistrate has to decide as to whether there is a ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter. We must note that while Section 245(2) CrPC speaks about the discharge of the accused on the ground that the charge is groundless, Section 246(1) operates in entirely different sphere. An order u/s 245(2) CrPC results in discharge of the accused, whereas, an order u/s 246 CrPC creates a situation for the accused to face a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the two Sections would have to be interpreted in slightly different manner, keeping in mind the different spheres, in which they operate. There is only one judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Verendra Vs. Aashraya Makers 1999 (4) TMI 661 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , which has taken the view that the Magistrate can frame the charge even without any evidence having been taken u/s 244 CrPC. We do not think that is a correct expression of law, as the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses at the stage of Section 244(1) CrPC would be completely lost, if the view is taken that even without the evidence, a charge can be framed u/s 246(1) CrPC. The right of cross-examination is a very salutary right and the accused would have to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been offered at the stage of Section 244(1) CrPC. The accused can show, by way of the cross-examination, that there is no justifiable ground against him for facing the trial and for that purpose, the prosecution would have to offer some evidence. While interpreting this Section, the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused in his losing an opportunity to show to the Court that he is not liable to face the trial on account of there being no evidence against him, cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, the earlier cases of the same Court, were brought to the notice of the Learned Judge. Again, the Learned Judge has not considered the true impact of the clause at any previous stage of the case , which could only mean that even with a single witness, the Magistrate could proceed to frame the charge. It is clear that the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses is lost, as the Trial Court has straightaway proceeded to frame the charge. In that view, we would have to quash the order, framing the charge. It is accordingly, quashed. The matter will now go back before the Trial Court, where the prosecution may offer the witnesses u/s 244(1) CrPC and the opportunity to cross-examine, would be offered to the accused. It is only thereafter, that the Trial Court would proceed to decide as to whether the charge is to be framed or not. The charge framed in this case is clearly premature, in view of the reasons given by us. The order framing the charge would, therefore, have to be set aside. We are not expressing anything on merits, particularly because we have directed the evidence of the prosecution to be led u/s 244 (1) CrPC. Any expressions on our part are likely to cause prejudice to the prosecution, as the case may be, accused. We are, therefore, leaving the matter at this. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that the matter shall now go back to the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall proceed to examine all the witnesses offered by the prosecution and it is only after the evidence of those witnesses is recorded, that the Trial Court would proceed to decide as to whether the charge is to be framed or not. The appeal, thus, succeeds partly.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and confirmation of the Trial Court's order. 2. Applicability of Sections 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of discharge applications. 3. Validity of framing charges without evidence under Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. 4. The role and timing of evidence in warrant trials instituted otherwise than on police reports. 5. The impact of previous judicial interpretations on the current case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Dismissal of the Writ Petition and Confirmation of the Trial Court's Order: The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court of Jharkhand's decision to dismiss the writ petition and uphold the Trial Court's refusal to discharge the accused-appellant. The High Court had based its decision on the earlier judgment by the Patna High Court, which found that the appellant was aware of the forged letter used in the court proceedings. The High Court concluded that the allegations against the appellant were not based on mere suspicion but on substantial documentary evidence, thus justifying the framing of charges. 2. Applicability of Sections 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. in the Context of Discharge Applications: The Supreme Court elaborated on the procedural differences between trials based on police reports and those instituted otherwise. In the latter, Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. are applicable, which require the prosecution to produce evidence before a charge is framed. The appellant's discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was deemed appropriate, as it allows for discharge at any stage before the evidence is completed if the charge is found to be groundless. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must consider whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction. 3. Validity of Framing Charges Without Evidence Under Section 246(1) Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. necessitates some evidence before a charge can be framed. The phrase "or at any previous stage of the case" in Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. was interpreted to mean that a charge could be framed even before all evidence is completed, but not without any evidence at all. The Court rejected the view that charges could be framed solely based on a complaint without supporting evidence. 4. The Role and Timing of Evidence in Warrant Trials Instituted Otherwise Than on Police Reports: The Court clarified that in warrant trials not based on police reports, the prosecution must present evidence at the initial stage under Section 244 Cr.P.C. This evidence is crucial for the Magistrate to decide whether to discharge the accused under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. or to frame charges under Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court erred in framing charges without any evidence being recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., thus denying the accused the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. 5. The Impact of Previous Judicial Interpretations on the Current Case: The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including the decisions in Cricket Association of Bengal and Luis de Piedade Lobo, which supported the view that a Magistrate could discharge an accused at any stage before evidence is recorded if the charge is groundless. However, for framing charges, some evidence must be present. The Court found that the Trial Court's action of framing charges without any evidence was premature and contrary to established legal principles. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the order framing the charge and directed the Trial Court to proceed under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C., allowing the prosecution to present evidence and the accused to cross-examine witnesses. Only after this process should the Trial Court decide on framing charges. The appeal was thus partly allowed, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards in warrant trials not based on police reports.
|
