The division judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Apex Court in the case of Soundarajan Vs State Rep. by the inspector of police vigilance anti-corruption Dindigul held that the Trial Court and the public prosecutor have a duty to be vigilant while framing charges against the accused, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant purchased the land and the sale deed was present before the Appellant-Sub Registrar. The complainant got the sale deed typed at the stamp paper of Rs 880/- and also paid Rs.190/ towards the registration charges of the sale deed. Thereafter, the complainant was informed to bring an FMB sketch from the concerned government office. After that when the sketch was produced. The Appellant informed the Complainant that he would have to make a site visit. Furthermore, the Complainant was asked to bring a TOPO sketch, and after producing all the requisite documents, the Appellant demanded Rs 500 from the Complainant. The complainant filed the complaint with the inspector of police of the Anti-Corruption Unit.
The Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’).
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the charge framed against the accused is about the demand made on 12th July 2004 when the sale deed was registered. However, as per the prosecution case, no demand was made on 12th July 2004 by the Appellant. It was furthermore submitted that the material defect in the framing of the charge has caused grave injustice to the Appellant.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that as per Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, defect and omission in the framing of charge cause no fatal to the prosecution case until and unless it is established by the accused that grave injustice has been caused.
The learned counsel relied upon the judgments titled Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, Union of India v. Ex-GNR Ajeet Singh, and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the special court omitted to frame a charge on demand allegedly made by the appellant on 6th and 13th August 2004 and acceptance thereof on 13th August 2004.
It was furthermore observed that in accordance with Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code, failing to frame a charge or committing a mistake in the charge is never fatal unless the Court determines that it actually caused a failure of justice. Without question, the right charge was not framed in this instance, and the one that was made was inherently flawed. The accused was not prejudiced regarding his right to a defence, nonetheless, as a result of the omission or flaw. Because of this, the failure to frame the charge or the framing error in this instance is not fatal.
It was noted that when it comes to the framing of charges, Trial Courts should be extremely careful. Any such mistake or omission in a particular case could result in acquittal and/or an extended trial because of a remand order that could be issued in accordance with subsection (2) of Section 464 of the CrPC. Aside from the Trial Court's obligation, the public prosecutor also has a responsibility to exercise diligence. If a suitable charge is not brought, it is his responsibility to ask the Court to do so.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Top Court quashed the judgment and acquitted the appellant of all the offences alleged against him.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Soundarajan Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of police vigilance anti-corruption Dindigul
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr S.Nagamuthu
Advocate for the State: Dr Joseph Aristotle
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 .
0 Comments