Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1986 (BOM)

Ramesh Sahadeo Patil v. State of Maharashtra

2013-09-25

P.D.KODE

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By the present application, the applicant prays for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge framed against him and relegating the matter back to the trial Court for framing the charge, if any, emerging out of the material collected during the course of investigation. The challenge is on the ground of the charge being framed upon the vague matters and in fact not on basis of material collected during the investigation against the applicant. 4. The foundation of the challenge is based on the bone contention that the charge is framed on the allegation of the offence alleged having committed during the period from 15.04.1992 to 26.12.2000. It is crux of the submission of the learned counsel that it is undisputed position that the applicant has been posted as an Administrative Officer for the relevant institution since 04.01.2000 to 29.10.2000. It is submitted that the charge being framed for the amount entrusted during the entire period and not for the period for which the applicant was functioning as an Administrative Officer without specifying the amount, if any, allegedly entrusted to him and allegedly misappropriated by him, he will not get adequate opportunity of understanding and meeting the case attempted to be established against him at the trial. 5. Considering short controversy involved in the matter, it will be wholly unnecessary to recite in detail about the said case except stating that said case has emerged out of the investigation made by the Tahsil Police Station regarding complaint of misappropriation lodged by one Dr. W.B. Tayde, Dean, Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur to the effect that during the period from 1992 to 2000, misappropriation of an amount of Rs.22,44,358/- has taken place regarding such amount entrusted with the Cashier and the Administrative Officer. The said complaint was lodged on the basis of the report of the Auditor received by the said complainant. The initial complaint was directed against the co-accused i.e. Cashier in the said Hospital. However, lateron during the course of the investigation, the Police having unearthaned some role allegedly played by the applicant, he was charge sheeted by the said Police. 6. Mr. The initial complaint was directed against the co-accused i.e. Cashier in the said Hospital. However, lateron during the course of the investigation, the Police having unearthaned some role allegedly played by the applicant, he was charge sheeted by the said Police. 6. Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that even as per charge sheet presented it is beyond any dispute that the applicant was not concerned/connected with said hospital until he was posted as an Administrative Officer. It is his further submission that apart from there being no material in the charge sheet, in fact there could not have been any material in the charge sheet regarding entrustment of any amount to him prior to himse1rjoining the said hospital. It is his further submission in the said case charge framed for entrustment of the total amount of Rs.22,44158/- during the said period is unable to reflect, the case which he is required to meet at the trial. It is submitted that since such a charge could not have been framed and particularly without specifying the amount, if any, allegedly entrusted with him after he joined the said hospital and thereafter allegedly misappropriated by him, the charge framed is liable to be quashed and set aside with a direction to frame an appropriate charge, if any, arising out of the material collected during the course of the investigation. 7. The learned counsel thereafter by drawing attention to the order dated 20.06.2011 passed on Criminal Application No.1996/2010 and the another order dated 13.07.2012 in Criminal Application No.6 of 2012 i.e. the application preferred by the applicant, submitted that in spite of said orders passed by this Court directing the trial Court to carefully consider the material in charge sheet and frame proper charge again, such a vague charge not giving a clue regarding the prosecution allegations against the applicant has been framed, warrants stern direction to be given to the trial Court for framing appropriate charge, if any arising out of the material against the applicant. 8. Mr. V.A. Thakre, learned APP after considering the orders passed earlier as well as the matters stated in the charge has fairly admitted of the charge being framed in such a manner in spite of earlier directions given by this Court. 8. Mr. V.A. Thakre, learned APP after considering the orders passed earlier as well as the matters stated in the charge has fairly admitted of the charge being framed in such a manner in spite of earlier directions given by this Court. It is difficult to approve framing of such a charge at a criminal trial wherein the relevant provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals that a charge containing the definite allegation arising out of the material collected during the course of investigation is required to be framed. It needs no saying that careful consideration of the relevant provisions reveals that the said provisions stipulate framing of charge containing a definite allegation to enable the concerned accused to know the case which he is supposed to meet at the trial. 9. The learned APP having not disputed the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant, as well as such a position is found stated in an earlier order that the applicant has joined the said institution on 31.12.1999, the glance at the charge framed does not give a clue regarding the amount, if any was entrusted with him after he joined the said institution. Having regard to the same, the prayer in the application deserves consideration as the said charge cannot be said to be in consonance with the material in the charge sheet presented and also on another count of the same not giving a clear picture to the applicant of prosecution case against him. 10. Resultantly, the charge dated 1.12.2012 framed against the applicant is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to the trial Court for framing of appropriate charge arising out of the material collected during the course of the investigation. Both the parties are directed to render the necessary assistance to the trial Court regarding the nature of the material in the charge sheet enabling the trial Court to frame an appropriate charge. 11. above terms. Rule made absolute in the Ordered accordingly.