Ramesh Kumar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 0707. We therefore, dismiss both these cases with the clarification that nothing in this judgment will influence the trial Court while dealing with the matter. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice (Alok Aradhe) Judge AK
Judgment
Shri T. P. Mishra, Advocate with Shri S. P. Mishra Advocate for the applicant. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Special Prosecutor for for the respondent. ********************************************************
O R D E R (03/04/2012) Per Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J. These two cases have been filed by the same accused virtually for the same relief. In the criminal revision the accused challenges the order dated 14.7.2011 framing charges under Sections 477-A, 218, 201 and 120-B of IPC. In the M.Cr.C. the accused challenges the criminal proceedings against him in which the aforesaid charges have been 2 framed.
In brief the charge against the applicant is that with a view to save the co-accused, who was caught red handed in a trap, the applicant got fabricated ante dated entries in the ledger, which fact is supported by the evidence of certain witnesses and the handwriting expert report. The applicant was the Treasury Officer and the co-accused, who was caught in the trap, was his Assistant Treasury Officer.
If the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is to be accepted it would mean that this Court in a criminal revision under Section 397/401 or in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should record a finding of fact regarding truth of the charges at this stage, even before the prosecution has had the chance of leading evidence in the trial to prove these charges.
Firstly a finding of pure fact cannot be recorded either in criminal revision or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. regarding guilt or innocence of the accused in respect of the charges, and secondly this in any case cannot be done without giving the prosecution a chance to lead evidence in the trial Court for proving the charges.
Such preemption of trial is not permissible.
A very large number of decisions have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, but none of these decisions have any relevance to the proposition indicated above in this order and, therefore, we are not inclined to burden this judgment with irrelevant case law. 3
We therefore, dismiss both these cases with the clarification that nothing in this judgment will influence the trial Court while dealing with the matter. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice (Alok Aradhe) Judge AK
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.