LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DR. BUDHIKOTA SUBHARAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DR. BUDHIKOTA SUBHARAO MARCH 16, 1993 (S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 397-High Court's jurisdiction-Proceedings when vitiated by 'fraud'. Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 44-Legal proceedings-When vitiated by 'fraud'. Indian Contract Ac~ 1872. Section 17-'Fraud'-What is:-Effect on legal proceedings. Words and Phrases. 'Fraud'-Meaning of. A B c D The respondent, an ex Naval Officer and Compnter Science graduate was accused of leaking Atomic Energy Secrets and charged for violating the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Official E Secrets Act. 1923. Ultimately when he was discharged for failure of the State to obtain the necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C., and the State challenged the correctness of the order by way of revision, the respondent filed an application for the declaration that the charge sheet be declared null and void. In para 3 thereof it was stated that the charges were vitiated by fraud as the Panchnama dated May 30, 1988 was fabri- F cated as it did not contain his signature and it was ante dated. It was further averred that for three months even the copies of the remand application filed by the police were denied to him, and that orders thereon were not supplied to him, and that the complaint was in contradiction with the statement of witnesses. The High Court allowed this application. G In the State's appeal to this Court on the question whether the High Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent for declaring that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Jndge by bis order dated 24/27th July, 1990 were null and void as. they were obtained by fraud, practised by the state. H 329 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court dated B 14th October, 1991, and dismissing the application of the accused for declaring the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges against him as vitiated by fraud, this Court, HELD : 1. The High Court by its order passed on 25/26th March, 1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 966of1990 had specifically held that the question of framing charge bad become final. It could not be, there- fore, re-opened. The Division Bench had clearly held that it was not open to go behind the order passed by the Single Judge on 3.4.1990 directing that the charges being framed against the accused not only under Section C 3 but under Section 5 as well. Nor can any exception be taken to the finding of the Bench that the said order could not be said to have been passed without jurisdiction in as much as the Single Judge had jurisdic- tion to decide the revision application preferred under the provisions of the Code. [332B-C] D 2. The question of fraud raised by the accused was negatived by the, . E F G H Division Bench and it was held that it was not capable of being gone into as it did not form part of the substratum of the case of the prosecution and was not germane to the question of deciding as to whether he was entitled to be discharged or not. [332D] 3. 'Fraud' is false representation by one who is aware that it was untrue with an intention· ta mislead the other who may act upon it to bis prejudice and to the advantage of the representor. It has been defined statutorily in Section 17 of the Contract Act as including certain acts committed with connivance or with intent to deceive another. In Ad· ministrative Law it has· been extended to failure to disclose all relevant and material facts which one bas a positive duty to disclose. [332G-H] 4. Even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Such being the nature and consequence of it the law requires not only stri.ct pleading of it but strict proof as well. [333B] 5. Facts which could be fished out from paragraphs averring fraudulent submissions could not be said to be relevant for alleging fraud. [334E] 6. Legal submissions cannot be equated to misrepresentation. The pleadings in th• instant case .fall short of the legal requirements to estab- -1' ' • ' l t ~ I f -- ~ • • I ·v • -• - ! j STAIB v. DR. BUDHIKOTA [SAHA!, J.] 331 llsh fraud. Various sentences extracted from different judgments between A the accussed and State in various proceedings could not give rise to an inference either in law or fact that the S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.