Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Gorachand De, J.
Pradip Kr. Sengupta
vs.
State of West Bengal
C.R.R. No. 2125 of 2001
Decided On : May 7, 2002
Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Nandini Mitra for the petitioner;
Tirthankar Ghosh, N. Sengupta, Suman Mukherjee for the complainant;
Subhasish Pachhal for the State.
The court has the power to look into material other than those produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charge, and the accused has the opportunity to produce the relevant documents before the trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 239, 240, 401, 482 - CHARGE - FRAMING OF CHARGE - DOCUMENTS - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS - EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED - SCOPE OF EXAMINATION - WEIGHING OF EVIDENCE - STAGE OF FRAMING OF CHARGE - POWER OF COURT TO LOOK INTO MATERIAL OTHER THAN THOSE PRODUCED BY PROSECUTION - PRODUCTION OF FORGED DOCUMENT - SETTLEMENT OF MATTER OUT OF COURT - COMPANY COURT PROCEEDINGS - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT APPROPRIATE STAGE OF TRIAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Pradip Kumar Sengupta, filed a petition under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the entire proceeding, including the order dated 19.6.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, in G.R. Case No. 347 of 1995 arising out of Coke Oven P.S. Case No. 31 of 1995 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that before framing the charge, the Magistrate should have taken into consideration a list of documents enclosed in the petition and that he did not get an opportunity to produce or rely on those documents during the examination under sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no illegality or irregularity in framing the charge against the accused persons and that the petitioner had the opportunity to produce the relevant documents before the trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was required to consider the documents enclosed in the petition before framing the charge? 2. Whether the petitioner had the opportunity to produce or rely on the documents during the examination under sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 3. Whether the petitioner can produce the documents at an appropriate stage of the trial?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Magistrate is competent to weigh the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced to check out whether there is any basic infirmity, but such an exercise was nothing but finding out a prima facie case against the accused. 2. The court held that the petitioner had the opportunity to produce the relevant documents before the trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial. 3. The court held that the petitioner can produce the documents at an appropriate stage of the trial.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order.
Gorachand De, J.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the opposite party No. 1, State of West Bengal and the opposite party No. 2 Indrajit Sengupta separately at length.
2. The petitioner Pradip Kumar Sengupta on the basis of this application under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for setting aside the entire proceeding along with the order dated 19.6.2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur in G.R. Case No. 347 of 1995 arising out of Coke Oven P.S. Case No. 31 of 1995 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In course of hearing Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, draw the attention of this court to page 86 of the present application in which a list of documents has been enclosed and contended that before framing of charge it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to take into consideration the said documents. It is also argued that if those documents were duly considered, it would have been found that no charge could be framed against the present petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharya also placing reliance on the provisions of sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contended that before framing of the charge, it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to make appropriate examination of the accused which was practically not done in this case and the present accused did not get any opportunity to produce or to rely on the documents hereinabove mentioned in course of such examination.
4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anr., reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1104, in support of the contention that if the documents in question are duly considered before framing of charge, it would appear that two views are equally possible and in that event if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the Magistrate will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. So Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner made a forceful argument praying for setting aside the impugned order by which a charge was framed against the accused persons under section 420 IPC and prayed for another chance to produce the papers for consideration as to whether charge is to be framed in this case or not.
5. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, Indrajit Sengupta however supported the order dated 19.6.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate pointing out that there was no infirmity in the order, and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons and on perusal of the materials on record as collected by the Investigating Agency, the charge was framed. It is also contended that the right of examination of the accused contemplated under sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly exercised by the accused on the basis of his appearance through his learned Counsel. It is contended that the learned Magistrate also duly examined the accused before framing of charge. It is also pertinent to mention here that the documents as indicated at page 86 of the present petition were not produced before the Investigating Agency and no attempt was made to bring those documents on record even before framing of charge.
6. In this connection Mr. Ghosh also pointed out that immediately after starting of the case on the basis of a complaint sent to the police under section 156 (3) of the Code, an application for quashing of the FIR along with the entire proceeding was filed by the present petitioner and the Single Judge of this court by his order dated 14.2.1997 in Criminal Revision No. 1966 of 1996 allowed the application and quashed the entire proceeding coming to a conclusion that no case was made out against the present petitioner. However, the
