HC reiterates Order framing charge is not purely an Interlocutory Order nor is it a Final Order

  

Read Judgment ;

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Kila vs CBI consisting of Justice Asha Menon reiterated that that an order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor is it a final order. So, the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be barred irrespective of the label of the petition, be it u/s 397(2) or 482 CrPC or even Article 227 of the Constitution.

Facts

The petition was filed u/s 482 CrPC challenging the order and framing of charge by the learned Special Judge-03 (PC Act) against the petitioner u/s 109 IPC read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (‘PC Act’). The CBI registered an FIR against Arvind Kumar, a Chief Engineer in Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, who was found to be in possession of assets beyond the disclosed source of income. The FIR was also filed against his wife and several others, including the petitioner whose role as noticed in the impugned order was that he was a Chartered Accountant of the company of Smt. Indu and played a pivotal role in routing illegal money of the main accused as he arranged companies and persons whose bank accounts were used for channelizing illegal money of the main accused. 

 

Contentions Made

Petitioner: The petitioner was not named in the FIR. However, when the chargesheet was filed his name was also arraigned as an accused. Trial Court had erred in framing charge against the petitioner in the absence of any evidence against him. The confessional statement of an accused could not be used against the petitioner, who was a co-accused. The statements were retracted later, which were the only evidence to establish that he had abetted the commission of the offence by the public servant.

Respondent: The court ought to exercise its revisional or inherent powers only to correct jurisdictional errors and only in the rarest of rare cases. The petitioner had been named in three confessional statements and there were corroborating documents on the record which connected him to the commission of the offence. The Trial Court was not required to assess the material presented by the prosecution in depth and detail while framing charges.

Observations of the Court

Relying on Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, the Bench reiterated that an order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor was it a final order and therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was not barred irrespective of the label of the petition, be it u/s 397(2) or 482 CrPC or even Article 227 of the Constitution. This jurisdiction had to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial and a challenge to the order on charge should only be entertained in the rarest of the rare cases and where there was a jurisdiction error, not otherwise.

It further noted that an accused is a competent witness u/s 315 CrPC but it is a peculiar reasoning that the Court ought to wait till the conclusion of the trial for any of the accused to become a witness in favour of the prosecution, to then use that against a co-accused viz the petitioner herein.

It also noted that the learned Trial Court could have referred to Section 319 CrPC rather than Section 315 CrPC, which empowers the court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offence during trial, after the submission of the chargesheet and observed that the discharge of an accused will not limit the powers of the Trial Court u/s 319 CrPC.

It also noted that retracted statements of a co-accused will be inadequate to establish, prima-facie, the participation of the petitioner in a conspiracy with the co-accused to facilitate the commission of the offences.

Judgment

Since there was no independent material against the petitioner, the impugned order on charge as also the charge could not be sustained and were quashed. The petition was hereby allowed.

Case: Vinod Kumar Kila vs CBI

Citation: CRL.M.C. 2942/2016, CRL.M.A. 12639/2016 (for ad interim stay)

Bench: Justice Asha Menon

Decided on: 8^th August 2022 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure