LexMICHAL MACHADO AND ANR. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MICHAL MACHADO AND ANR. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. FEBRUARY 17, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Section 319-Power to proceed against a person appearing to be guilty of offence during trial of such offence against other named accused-Essential conditions for exercise of such power-Held, court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence al- ready collected, that the other person has committed an offence and that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already a"aigned accused-Mere suspicion of involvement of such other persons in A B c the offence not enough-There is a discretion vested in the court but such power should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice-None of the 49 D witnesses examined in the trial mentioned about the involvement of the ap- pellant in the offence-The statement of three remaining witnesses creating suspicion against the appellants-Held, suspicion is not sufficient to hold there is reasonable prospect of convicting the appellants in the offence-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471. A complaint was filed by Deputy Manager of Corporation Bank that a huge amount had been defrauded by certain persons. FIR was registered E by CBI and after investigations two charge sheets were filed against four accused persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In the final report it was clearly mentioned that four accused persons p along with certain other person secured loans from the bank to the tune of more than half a crore in the name of existing and non-existing persons on the strength of bogus share certificates. It was further stated that the materials collected by CBI were insufficient to show the involvement of three officials, including the two appellants, in the perpetration of said crime. However, CBI had recommended to the Bank for initiating G departmental action against these officials. Metropolitan Magistrate, after perusing the charge sheet felt that CBI was shielding the appellants from prosecution and sought explanation regarding that aspect. After considering the explanation, Magistrate felt H 981 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200011 S.C.R. A that investigating officer had committed an offence under Section 219 IPC and issued notices to them, and impleaded the appellants as additional accused in the said trial. The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the concerned investigating officer before the High Court and the same was quashed by it with the observation that it was open to the Magistrate B to consider at the appropriate stage whether any action was necessary under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the appellants. During the trial, until 49 witnesse~ were examined, trial court had no reason to believe the necessity to implead the appellants. But when the statement of remaining thrt:e witnesses were recorded, it appeared to the C Magistrate that appellants were also involved in the crime. Thus an order impleading the appellants as accused was passed by the Magistrate. D This order of the Magistrate was challenged by the appellants before the High Court and the same was dismissed by it. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court 1.1. The basic requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that the Court must have reasonable satbfaction from the evidence already collected during trial or in the inquiry regarding two aspects, First, that some E person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence. Second, that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. lt is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. [988-F] F l.2. But even then, what is conferred on the court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words 'the court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other G person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial had proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.