Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Tapak Natam S/o Late Tareng Natam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 7 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2023
PDPP Act - Criminal Revision Petition - Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which provides for punishment for committing mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property. The court also referred to Section 227 of Cr.P.C., which deals with the discharge of the accused, and Section 228, which requires the court to frame charges if there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the rejection of the application for discharge and the framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act. The case involved the demolition of a government quarter and the subsequent construction of an RCC building by the accused petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie case against the accused petitioner and upheld the rejection of the discharge application and the framing of charges under Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the discharge application, the framing of charges, and the prima facie case against the accused petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases, emphasizing that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if there is a prima facie case against the accused. The court also highlighted the limited scope of enquiry at this stage and the need to proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations in the judgment.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and it was made clear that the trial should proceed in accordance with the law without being influenced by the observations in the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh representing the respondent no. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 despite service of notice.
2. By filing this criminal revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, in G.R. Case No. 363/2020, by which the application filed by the accused petitioner for discharge has been rejected and the charge framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, in G.R. Case No. 363/2020, under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as PDPP Act in short) against the petitioner.
3. The case set up by the prosecution is that a complaint by one Shri Nabam Tama was lodged to the Director (Housing) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who on receipt of the said complaint, filed a written complaint to the Chief Estate Officer-cum-ADM, Itanagar Capital Complex. The complaint was forwarded to the Itanagar Police for investigation. Pursuant thereto, a case was registered being Itanagar Police Station Case No. 144/2020 under Section 3 of the PDPP Act. The allegation against the petitioner is demolition of Government Quarter No. 23/T-I at Niti Vihar, Itanagar.
4. After completion of the investigation, the Police has charge-sheeted the petitioner under Section 3 of PDPP Act. During the course of investigation, 4 (four) witnesses were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The G.R. Case No. 363/2020 under Section 3 of PDPP Act was taken up for consideration of charges against the petitioner on 03.03.2023. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 02/2023 praying for discharge from the case.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for prosecution and the accused and on consideration of the materials, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner for discharge on 03.03.2023 and framed the charge against the accused petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act. Hence the present criminal revision petition.
6. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 3 of the PDPP Act. She submits that the learned Court below has committed an error in fact by stating in the charge itself that the accused petitioner has built an RCC building in the compound of the alleged demolished quarter after demolishing the quarter. As the fact clearly visible in the charge-sheet itself that the quarter was a bachelor barrack without any compound wall and the alleged incident of demolition as per the charge-sheet took place in 2019, it is impossible that the accused petitioner would build an RCC building after demolishing the quarter in 2010. She further submits that the learned Court below has committed an error in fact and in law in coming to the conclusion that just because the adjacent quarter to the alleged demolished quarter i.e. Quarter no. 24/T-I is still standing, the accused petitioner must have demolished the quarter, whereas it was pleaded very clearly that the Quarter no. 24/T-I though still standing is in a very bad shape and may collapse any time soon. Referring to the photographs annexed in the petition, she claims that it is clear from the photographs that the area where the alleged demolished quarter stood is vacant and the petitioner has not occupied the same.
7. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submits that framing of charge against the accused petitioner is not sustainable inasmuch as there is no witness who has stated specifically implicating the accused petitioner and only on the assumption of non-complaint of collapse of the quarter, the learned Court below has framed the charge. She submits that the learned Court below has committed a
At the stage of considering a discharge application, the court must assume the truth of the prosecution's evidence and determine if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has commi....
At the stage of framing charges, the Court should only consider whether a prima facie case is made out, without conducting a mini trial or examining the probative value of evidence.
Point of law : The ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, are fairly well settled. It has been consistently held that the standard of test and judgment which is ....
A Magistrate under Section 227 Cr.P.C. must judicially evaluate materials to determine if 'grave suspicion' exists against each accused, rather than acting as a mere conduit for the prosecution, espe....
Sufficient prima facie evidence, including intent tied to enmity, justifies charge framing under IPC Section 304(2) in a case involving reckless driving leading to death.
Criminal breach of trust and forgery by Bank officer – Mere depositing defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate accused/petitioner from charge of commission of offence which has been ultima....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
