Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen
K.V.Haneefa – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation SCB – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as 'BNSS' for short] by the revision petitioner, who is accused No.14 in C.C. No.23/2016 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, assailing the order dated 17.06.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.151/2025 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the revision petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in detail. Perused the order impugned and the decision placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be referred as ‘accused No.14/revision petitioner’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, there existed organized collection of money by travel agents from passengers, especially those from weaker sections of society, on the pretext of facilitating their emigration clearance. A share of this money was being paid to public servant
Framing of charges can occur in the absence of the accused, provided proper legal representation is present, ensuring no violation of the accused's rights.
Framing charges without affording accused opportunity for discharge under BNSS Section 262(1), hearing, or legal aid to custodial accused violates mandatory procedure; order set aside and remanded.
The judiciary must uphold statutory safeguards in charge framing, ensuring independent judicial reasoning and preserving defendants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
At the stage of framing the charge, the court should only consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused based on the material on record, and should not weigh the ev....
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
The court holds that at the charge-framing stage, only prima facie evidence is considered, and the accused's defence cannot be evaluated until trial, ensuring that enough grounds exist to presume an ....
Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of qua....
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
