9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refusal to discharge petitioner under Section 245 of Cr. P.C. based on the availability of material evidence for framing charges. Detailed Analysis: The revision petition was filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, dated 14-9-1994, in Crl. M.P. No. 2082/94 in C.C. No. 347/92, where the petitioner sought discharge from an alleged offence under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The petitioner contended that there was no material evidence to suggest his involvement in the alleged offence and thus filed an application under Section 245 of Cr. P.C. for discharge. The Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to discharge the petitioner, stating that the charges were not groundless and dismissed the application. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, filed a revision petition. The petitioner argued that without any evidence on record, he should have been discharged, while the respondent's counsel claimed that there were materials to establish the charges, and proceeding with the revision would prejudice the trial if ultimately dismissed. The respondent's counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa and State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj to justify the Chief Judicial Magistrate's decision. The Apex Court in the mentioned cases highlighted the importance of evaluating the material on record at the stage of framing charges and not seeking independent corroboration to discharge the accused. After considering the submissions of both parties and referring to Section 245 of Cr. P.C. and the Apex Court decisions, the Judge found no reason to interfere with the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order. The Judge concluded that sufficient materials were available for framing the charges, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to present all submissions on merits before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Coimbatore.
|
