The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing an opportunity for the accused to be heard before framing charges, as mandated by section 239 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. Sahoo, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Dillip Kumar Mohanty under section 401 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by Smt. S. S. Mishra, learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No. 1409 of 2016 in framing charges under sections 409/420/467/468/471/477-A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. On 28.03.2016 on the First Information Report of one Rama Chandra Muduli, Administrative Officer, Office of the Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar, E.O.W., Bhubanewswar P.S. Case No.6 of 2016 was registered under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and on completion of investigation, preliminary charge sheet was submitted on 23.07.2016 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar took cognizance of such offences and the case record was handed over to the Dealing Assistant for preparation of police papers and intimation was given to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and as soon as possible to submit final charge sheet.

On 08.08.2016 the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar splitted up the case and supplied the police papers to the petitioner and the case record was transferred to the Court of Smt. S. S. Mishra, J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar for disposal in accordance with law. On the very day, the case record was received in the transferee Court and after going through the records, the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar framed charges against the petitioner holding that there is prima facie case so also strong grounds for presuming that the petitioner had committed the offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath contended that though in the impugned order, it is mentioned that after hearing both the sides on the point of charge, the charge was framed but in fact no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He further contended that when on the very date, the police papers consisting of 223 sheets were supplied to the petitioner, the learned Trial Court should have given some time to the petitioner to go through the same and consult his advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that since everything was done hurriedly, the petitioner could not get an opportunity to file an application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same should be set aside and an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to file an application for discharge which should be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the State Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when prima facie materials are available on record against the petitioner, the Magistrate was justified in framing the charges after hearing both the sides on the point of charge.

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the three orders passed on 08.08.2016, it is quite apparent that not only the copy of the preliminary charge sheet consisting of 223 sheets was supplied to the petitioner on the very day and the case was also transferred from the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar to the Court of Smt. S. S. Mishra, J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar but also the charges were framed against the petitioner on that day.

Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner could not have got sufficient opportunity to go through the police papers, consult his advocate and therefore, he could not exercise his right under section 239 Cr.P.C. by filing an application for discharge.

5. Framing of charge under sectio