Sanjeev vs State of Maharashtra

A.V.Nirgude, J.(Oral)—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally.

The petitioner challenges the correctness of the order dated 3rd February, 2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, below Exh.1 and 3, in Special Case No.1 of 2011.

The petitioner is the accused in the above mentioned Special Case. Offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as ''the Act'') are alleged against the petitioner.

At the time of hearing before framing of charge, submissions were heard and the learned Special Judge held that the charge under Section 13 (2) of the Act cannot be framed against the petitioner. But, he held that charge under Section 7 of the Act can be framed. For justifying this action, he observed in the impugned order the reason:

"I have considered the papers of investigation and upon considering the same, it becomes clear that the charge under section 7 of the Act must be framed in this case because there is prima facie case which if remains unrebutted would warrant conviction of the accused under section 7 of the Act."

The learned Judge, however, did not discuss the facts which prima facie indicate that the even offence even under Section 7 of the Act was not committed by the petitioner. I am aware that the learned counsel for the petitioner too agreed at that time for framing of charge against his client under Section 7 of the Act.

Nonetheless it was the duty of the learned Judge to examine the papers and find out whether prima facie case was made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that even offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act is not apparently seen from the charge sheet. He also took me through some papers and I have my own doubts as to whether offence is prima facie made out. However, this aspect should be thoroughly examined by the learned Judge of the trial Court. He should hear submissions of petitioner''s Advocate on the question, whether charge under Section 7 of the Act can be framed against the petitioner. He should then pass a reasoned order for whatever conclusions he would draw thereafter. Thus, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of following order :-

The impugned order dated 3rd February, 2012 stands set aside.

The learned Judge of the trial Court shall hear the petitioner as well as the prosecution once more before deciding as to whether he should frame charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption

The conclusion drawn by the learned Judge for not framing charge under Section 13 (2) of the Act is not disturbed and the same shall not be discussed again.