CRIMINAL v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Judgment

1. The submissions learned Counsel appearing parties date. By Application section 482 Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred Code), Applicant prayed quashing proceeding a Special Case pending before learned Special Judge, Mumbai quashing 1st April 2006 rejecting application discharge Petitioner. It necessary briefly purpose appreciating the submissions which are made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

2. The Applicant original accused No.5 pending Special Case. The Applicant charged offence sections 120-B sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A Indian Penal Code section 13(2) section 13(1) (d) Prevention Corruption Act,

1988. Charge framed - 2 - against Applicant accused persons 13th December

1996. After framing charge, application 2001 the Applicant herein before Special Court seeking direction production certain documents. By

27th August 2001, application allowed prosecution directed produce before Special Court documents referred statement 24th February 1993 Mr.P.K.R.K.Menon. Thereafter, application discharge was filed by the applicant which came to be rejected by order dated 1st April 2006.

3. Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing Applicant submitted non-compliance prosecution mandatory requirement section 207 section 238 Code. He submitted learned Trial Judge satisfy compliance provisions section 207 Code furnishing requisite documents. He submitted statement Shri Menon recorded 24th February 1993 supplied Applicant. However, documents referred statement were supplied. He submitted 27th August 2001 passed learned Special Judge directing production documents itself non-compliance requirement section 238 section 207 Code. He submitted non-compliance, entire proceedings vitiated. He submitted - 3 - documents including documents ordered produced learned Special Judge 27th August 2001 should considered required section 239 Code purpose framing charge. He submitted documents produced passed 27th August 2001 earlier produced before Trial Court, charge framed against Applicant. He submitted applicant suffered prejudice. He submitted application discharge rejected decision Apex Court Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra others (A.I.R.1979 S.C. 94). He submitted entire proceedings Special Case vitiated, framing charge aside and the case may be directed to proceed from the stage of framing of the charge.

4. I considered submissions. Perusal passed learned Special Judge 1st April 2006 indicates learned Judge relied decision Apex Ratilal Bhanji (supra) framing charge logical inherent recall framing charge. The learned Special Judge considered submissions Applicant judgment the Apex State Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy and another (A.I.R. 2004 - 4 - S.C. page 3967).

5. It necessary decision Apex Ratilal Bhanji (supra). In paragraph 26A of the said decision, the Apex court held thus: "26A.Once a charge framed, Magistrate Section 227 provision Code The cancel charge, reverse proceedings Section 253 discharge accused. a warrant starts framing charge; proceedings inquiry. After framing charge accused pleads guilty, Magistrate required proceed manner provided Sections 254 258 a logical end. Once a charge framed complaint a a warrant case, instituted either police report, Magistrate Code discharge accused, thereafter, either acquit convict accused unless decides proceed Sections 349 and 562 of the Code of 1892 (which correspond to Sections 325 and 360 of the Code of 1973)."

6. The Apex a charge framed learned Magistrate provisions Code cancel charge revert proceeding earlier discharge accused. Considering - 5 - position reflected decision Ratilal Bhanji (supra), taken by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the application for discharge.

7. The submission Shri Desai appearing Applicant entire proceedings vitiated non-compliance section 207 Code. He placed reliance passed Special Judge 27th August 2001 directed production documents referred statement 24th February 1993 Shri P.K.R.K. Menon. He submitted documents produced order clearly show that there was a genuine trade transaction between M/s.Western Ministil Ltd. and M/s.Vergo Steels Ltd.

8. It is not possible to accept the submissions of Shri Desai that on account of failure to produce the said documents, the entire proceedings framing charge vitiated. There substantial compliance requirement prosecution. Failure produce documents referred 27th August 2001 nullify proceedings framing charge. It possible accede to the submission as every illegality does not have result of vitiating the proceedings of the case.

9. Now, charge framed case will - 6 - the Apex Court Ratilal Bhanji (supra). I is made exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the said Code at this stage. Hence, Application is rejected.

10. It is made nothing mentioned shall be treated as expression of any opinion as regards merits of the prosecution case. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE