LexBHARAT PARIKH versus C.B.I. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 950 ~ A BHARAT PARIKH v. C.B.I. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2008) JULY 14, 2008 .;. B [Al TAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c ss. 207, 227 and 482 - Prayer of accused for discharge after charges were framed - HELD: At the stage of framing the . . charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and sub- missions of accused have to be confined to the material pro- duced by investigating agency - Documents subsequently D filed cannot be relied upon to re-open the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of power of High Court uls 482 . .In the instant appeal arising out of rejection of E accused's application seeking to reopen the proceedings and his discharge after the charges had been framed, the questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) whether having framed charges against an accused, a Magistrate has the jurisdiction in law to recall such order on the ground that the prosecution had failed to comply .. - F with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure" and (ii) whether in exercise of its inherent powers, the High Court could quash the charges framed and acquit the accused on account of such non-compli- ance with the provisions of Sections 207 and 238 of the G Code Dismissing the appeal, the Court ~ HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the language of Sections 207 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while H 950 BHARAT PARIKH v. C.B.I. & ANR. 951 .... \ framing charges, the trial court can only look into the A materials produced by the prosecution while giving an opportunity to the accused to show that the said materi- als were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. [para 15] [956-F & G] State of Orissa VS. Oebendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 sec B 568; Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 94; and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Unga Swamy and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3967 - relied on. Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766 c - overruled. - 1.2 The question of discharge by the Magistrate after framing of charge does not, therefore, arise, notwith- standing the submissions advanced with regard to de- f nial of natural justice and a fair and speedy trial as con- D templated under Article 21 of the Constitution, which have no application whatsoever to the facts of the instant case. [para 15] [957-A & B] P Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 E SCC 578; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 .... SCC 225; Ohananjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 Crl. L.J. 3873 - held inapplicable. 2.1 With regard to the High Court's powers to look ... into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of F the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers un- der Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge, evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not G guilty to the charge and claims to be tried. It is only in the - exceptional circumstances that criminal proceedings may ~ .... .; be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly, when the prosecution has produced sufficient material for charges H 952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A to be framed. [para 16] [957-8,C & D] State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 - relied on. 2.2At the stage of framing charge roving and fishing B inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be con- ducted at such stage; and submissions on behalf of the accused have to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an oppor- tunity to prove the documents subsequently produced c by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same cannot be relied upon to re-opeh the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code. (para 16] [957-E.& F] D 3. No interference is warranted with the orders E F passed by the Special Judge or the High Court. (para 17] [957-G] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2008 From the Judgment/Order dated 21.9.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Application No. 2328 of 2006 Amit Desai, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Reema
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.