9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Shankar Narayan Singh, State RCH Officer, Namkum Ranchi with some unknown officials of the Health Department as well as with some private persons and by abusing their respective official position dishonestly purchased medicines, medical equipments/appliances, sundry items etc. used in the hospital from nineteen suppliers without assessing the actual requirement and without observing the formalities necessary to be followed. The fund was allotted in the National Rural Health Mission ( NRHM) and was financed by the Government of India. It is alleged that more amount was spent than the allocated budget. Further allegation has been made that medicines and equipments have been purchased at exorbitant rate and in excess without ascertaining the requirement by procuring false documents to show excess consumption of requirement of medicines and equipments. Based on the aforesaid allegations, an FIR was instituted by the CBI being RC 11(A)/2009-AHD(R). After investigation, chargesheet was submitted and cognizance was taken under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(i)(c)13(i) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay cannot be made attributable in an application under section 205 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner as the criminal case itself was quashed until it revived by virtue of the order of this Court having been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel also submits that question of delay in an application under section 205 Cr.P.C. cannot arise. It has been submitted that on the delay point, the Trial Judge has basically evaluated the pre-quashment stage without considering the intervening period when the proceedings were quashed and were subsequently revived. Learned senior counsel submits that as such between 5.4.2013 and 20.9.2015, no case was pending against the petitioner and therefore there was never any issue of delay. It has also been stated that time petition preferred by the petitioner had been rejected without considering the prescriptions which had been brought on record to substantiate the fact that the petitioner was suffering from illness. Learned senior counsel thus submits that the impugned orders show total non application of mind on the part of the learned Special Judge and therefore requires to be set aside. Furthering his argument, it has been submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the order passed by this Court on 29.9.2015. For the period 5.4.2013 to 29.9.2015, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a hand in delaying the case or for not appearing as during that period there was no criminal case in existence so far as petitioner is concerned. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of this Court, fresh summons were issued on 19.11.2015. Thereafter on 20.07.2016, the application was preferred by the petitioner under section 205 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 6.9.2016 seems to have merely dealt with the allegations against the petitioner and the prequashment stage, by virtue of which, proclamation and process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively had also been directed to be issued and the records were directed to be split up so far as petitioner is concerned. It further appears that the primary consideration which had weighed in the mind of the learned court below was the coercive steps directed to be taken for securing the attendance of the petitioner and the fact that in spite of issuance of fresh summons on 19.11.2005, the petitioner did not appear. Principles governing an application u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the trial can be achieved even in the absence of the accused the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the court in that particular case". Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the CBI, has referred to paragraph 19 of the same judgment, which reads as follows: " 19. The position, therefore, boils down to this: it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the Magistrate who grants such benefit to the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
