Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 556
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, J
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Uday Nath Majhi – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 6 / 2017
Ms. N.A.V. Sogra, Adv. vice Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI; Mr. P. Yobin, Adv. (For R 1 & 2); Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Adv. (For R 3); Ms. P.D. Bujarbaruah, Sr. Adv. with Mr. B.A. Wanswett, Adv. (For R 4 & 5)
The court upheld the discharge of accused persons, finding the charge sheet based on invalid documents and no prima facie case established against them.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) - Discharge of accused persons from liability at the stage of consideration of charges - The learned Special Judge found that the charge sheet was based on invalid and incomplete documents and no prima facie case was made out against the accused - The CBI's reliance on certain documents was deemed misplaced, leading to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 12, 18, 22, 36)
(B) Jurisdiction of Revisional Court - The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C is limited and should not be exercised routinely; it is to ensure that the trial court's decision is not afflicted by jurisdictional errors. (Paras 19, 41)
Facts of the case:
The petition challenges the order discharging accused persons in a corruption case related to a project funded by the North Eastern Council, where allegations of irregularities prompted a CBI investigation. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The learned Special Judge discharged the accused, stating that the charge sheet was based on invalid documents and no prima facie case was established against them. (Paras 12, 41)
Issues: The main issues were whether the charge sheet was valid and whether the learned Special Judge erred in discharging the accused. (Paras 12, 41)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the CBI failed to consider relevant documents and that the learned Special Judge acted within jurisdiction in discharging the accused. (Paras 36, 41)
Result: Petition disposed of. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of fund release (Para 3) |
| 3. allegations leading to investigation (Para 4) |
| 4. filing of charge sheet (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments by cbi (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. clarification on land purchase (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. response from defense counsel (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. consideration of documents (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 43) |
| 9. upholding of discharge (Para 41) |
| 10. final decision (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. Challenged in this petition is the impugned order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Shillong in Special Case No. 5/2009 under Section 120B , 420 , 467 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , whereby the respondent Nos. 1-5 as accused persons therein have been discharged from the liability of the case at the stage of consideration of charges.
2. The background facts leading to the filing of this petition is that the Principal of St. Peters College (Respondent No. 4) had undertaken a project named and styled as “Holistic Cluster Approaches at Grassroots Level for Sustainable Development in the North Eastern Region” in the State of Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh for which the North Eastern Council (NEC) was approached for sanction of the required funds.
3. Accordingly, the NEC had sanctioned an amount of ₹4,98,50,000/- on 18.03.2005, the same to be released in installments. At the first instance, the NEC had released the fund in three installments, the first being ₹47,00,000/- on 22.03.2005, the second installment of ₹20,00,000/- released on 20.06.2005 and the third installment of ₹2,00,00,000/- on 25.11.2005, the total being ₹2,67,00,000/-.
4. Records would show that there were allegations of irregularities in the implementation of the said project which prompted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. Eventually, an FIR dated 08.05.2009 was filed alleging that the respondents herein, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, being public servants as officials of the NEC, have entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and also with the respondent No. 4, the Principal, St. Peter’s College, Shillong and respondent No. 5, the Vice Principal, St. Peter’s College, Shillong and in abuse of their official power and position, had fraudulently and dishonestly processed and recommended the sanction for the said project submitted by respondent No. 4 without proper evaluation of the same and also for failing to incorporate the suggestions of the Advisor (Forest & Environment), NEC while releasing the said fund of ₹2,67,00,000/-.
5. In course of investigation, the CBI has recorded the statements of 41 witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C and has also collected as many as 124 documents to form the basis for making out a case against the accused persons/respondents herein for the said offences aforementioned. A charge sheet dated 30.07.2010 corresponding to FIR No. RC 6 of 2009 was submitted before the Court of the learned Special Judge (CBI) following which a regular case was registered as Special Case No. 5 of 2009.
6. After the charge sheet was filed, on 04.07.2012, the Trial Court proceeded to frame relevant charges against the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. At that point of time, the charges could not be framed against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, since they were not present in court on the day the charges were framed.
7. However, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C with a prayer for production of the complete set of audit statement pertaining to the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03.2009, but the same was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2012.
8. Another application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge from the case was also preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 respectively, this too was re
