Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 995 (ORI)

Rabindra Mahanta v. State of Odisha (Vigilance)

2017-09-07

B.K.NAYAK

body2017
ORDER 07.09.2017 Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Sr. Advocate for the Vigilance Department. 2. Order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR Case No. 05 of 2013 framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 13(2) R/W Section 13(1) (c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420/468/409/379/120-B, IPC is challenged in this application. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court having not supplied the copies of some documents on which the prosecution relies, on the ground that the documents were voluminous the petitioner had approached this Court in CRLMC No. 3489 of 2016 and that by order dated 19.01.2017 this Court passed order in the said CRLMC directing the Trial Court to supply copies of those documents to the petitioner on payment of cost for preparation of copies. In pursuance to the aforesaid order the petitioner prayed before the Trial Court for supply of copies in his petition dated 20.05.2017 and the said petition was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 05.06.2017. Even though cost for preparation of copies were not assessed and intimated and copies were not supplied to the petitioner, on the very same day by a later order charges have been framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that since the petitioner was not in possession of relevant documents and papers on which the prosecution relies, the petitioner’s counsel was not in a position to participate in the hearing on charge, and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 4. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department on the other hand contends that the petitioner’s counsel did not object to the framing of the charge and, on the contrary, the petitioner and other co accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and hence they cannot be heard at this stage on the legality and propriety of framing charge. It is also submitted by him that the police papers are supplied to the accused to enable him to prepare for this defence and therefore, the petitioner can pray before the Trial Court to discharge him at any stage. It is also submitted by him that the police papers are supplied to the accused to enable him to prepare for this defence and therefore, the petitioner can pray before the Trial Court to discharge him at any stage. It is also stated by him that another Bench of this Court while hearing BLAPL No. 926 of 2017 of the principal co-accused directed for early disposal of the trial and therefore, the Trial Court had no option than to proceed with the framing of charge. 5. Section 207 of the CrPC mandates for supply of copy of police reports and all those documents on which prosecution relies, to the accused, the purpose being to enable the accused to know what charge exactly he is going to face and whether from the police reports and other documents of the prosecution such charges are prima facie made out or not. In case the charges are not made out prima facie then there would be no necessity of framing of charge against the accused. Therefore, Section 238 of the CrPC provides that in any warrant case instituted on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC. The question of framing of charge or discharge of the accused on consideration of the police papers and on hearing the parties is a stage subsequent to the satisfaction of the Magistrate about compliance of Section 207, CrPC. Unless copies of police papers are supplied to the accused, he cannot effectively participate in hearing on the question of charge. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in framing charge against the petitioner when copies of some documents were directed to be supplied to the petitioner, in pursuance to order of this Court passed earlier, on the same day when the charges were framed. 6. However, it is seen that charges were framed not only against the petitioner but against other co accused persons by the very same impugned order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the order framing charge. Therefore, it is directed that the Trial Court shall assess the cost for preparation of copies of the documents which are necessary to e supplied to the petitioner as per the previous order, within a period of fifteen days. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the order framing charge. Therefore, it is directed that the Trial Court shall assess the cost for preparation of copies of the documents which are necessary to e supplied to the petitioner as per the previous order, within a period of fifteen days. On notification of such cost the petitioner shall deposit the same within seven days thereafter. Within a month from the date of deposit of the cost by the petitioner, copies of the documents be prepared and supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a petition for his discharge, if so advised, within one month from the date of receipt of copies of the documents. In case any such petition is filed by the petitioner, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merits, only with respect to the petitioner. The CRLMC is disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.