IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Robin Phukan, J.
Dr. Jogesh Borah S/o Late Domborudhar Borah - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam Represented By the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Affairs And Ors. – Respondents
Crl.Pet./439/2022
Decided On : 09-04-2024
Framing of Charge - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 397, 401 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dr. Jogesh Borah, challenged the order framing charges against him under Sections 409/34 IPC. The petitioner was the President of a society and was accused of misappropriation along with the Secretary. The petitioner contended that no charge-sheet was submitted against him, and witnesses implicated only the Secretary, not him.
Finding of the Court:
The court discussed the law on framing charges and emphasized the need for a prima facie case. It noted that witnesses only implicated the Secretary, and the petitioner's role seemed limited. The court found no grounds to presume the petitioner's guilt and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges against the petitioner under Sections 409/34 IPC, based on the evidence and witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to frame charges and highlighted that the evidence failed to disclose the petitioner's commission of the alleged offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, setting aside the order framing charges against the petitioner.
Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1.
2. In this petition, under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, namely, Dr. Jogesh Borah has challenged the correctness of otherwise of the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nazira, Sivasagar, in PRC Case No.143/2020, arising out of Simaluguri P.S. Case No.76/2019, under Sections 406/409/420 IPC. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022, the learned Court below has framed charge against the present petitioner Dr. Jogesh Borah, under Sections 409/34 IPC.
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:-
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
State of Maharashtra vs. Somnath Thapa
State of West Bengal -vs.-Mohd. Khalid & Anr.
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr.
Sushil Sethi & Anr. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.
Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam & Ors.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao
The main legal point established is that the court must find a prima facie case to frame charges, and the evidence must reasonably connect the accused with the alleged offence.
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
The court ruled that sufficient prima facie evidence can justify proceeding with charges of misappropriation, irrespective of past departmental findings of non-responsibility.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The act of the petitioners in taking away the document was not part of their official duty, and thus, prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was not required. At the stage of....
Investigating officer is arm of law and plays pivotal role in dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order.
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
At the charge framing stage, prima facie evidence must substantiate serious suspicion; the trial court is not to weigh evidence but must proceed based on materials presented by the prosecution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.