Rajesh Jain V. Union of India through Superintendent Prosecution, Central Excise Department, Commissionerate, Jaipur

CRLMP/4777/2016

AI Insights

The case involves multiple accused, including Rajesh Jain, Anil Kumar Jain, and Bhagwan Das Agarwal, who were associated with M/s Rajasthan Explosive & Chemical Ltd. The Union of India, through the Superintendent Prosecution, Central Excise Department, Commissionerate, Jaipur, was the complainant. The core issue revolved around the proper application of procedural laws in framing charges against the accused. The High Court of Rajasthan examined whether the charges were framed correctly and whether the accused were given a fair opportunity to respond to the charges. The court referenced several precedents to emphasize the importance of adhering to procedural norms during the framing of charges.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803047 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jarnail Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, The State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrakant Annappa Shyanbhag and Anr., M/s Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi and Others vs. J.S. Wagh and another
• Laws Referred To: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS MISHRA
• Keywords: Discharge; Private complaint; Framing of charge; Warrant case
• Section: 246; 245; 228; 227; 247

Judgement Text

"1 र\u0002जस\u0005\u0002न उच न \u0002 \u0002ल ज प\u000fर प\u0010ठ , ज प\u000fर आद\u0014श एकलप\u0005ठ फ जद र\u000e व\u0010व\u0010ध य च\u0014क स\u0016खय 4777/2016 1. Rajesh Jain S/o. Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, aged about 54 years, Managing Director (Ex) M/s Rajasthan Explosive & Chemical Ltd., Dholpur, at present R/o 154, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 2. Anil Kumar Jain S/o Shri Prem Chand Jain, B/c Jain, aged about 63 years, Vice President (Product) (Ex) M/s Rajasthan Explosive & Chemical Ltd., Dholpur, at present, 13, Income Tax Colony, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. 3. Bhagwan Das Agarwal S/o Shri Kirori Lal Agarwal, B/c Mahajan, aged about 52 years, Vice President (Product) (Ex) M/s Rajasthan Explosive & Chemical Ltd., Dholpur, at present Bajaria, RAC Road, Dholpur, Rajasthan. ...Accused/Petitioners Versus Union of India through Superintendent Prosecution, Central Excise Department, Commissionerate, Jaipur. ....Non-Petitioner/Complainant आद\u0019श ददन \u0016क: 22.11.2016 2 म नन\u0005य नय य चधपत श\u0005 बन\u0010 र\u000eल ल शम # श\u0005 मह\u0019न% ग'यल, अचध\u0010क - य \u0014\u0005गण क+ ओर स\u0019। श\u0005 कक \u0016 श/क ज0न, अचध\u0010क - अय \u0014\u0005 क+ ओर स\u0019। श\u0005 स/द\u0019श स0न\u0005, ल'क अभ2य'जक। य \u0014\u0005गण अभ2य/कगण र ज\u0019श ज0न, अतनल क / म र ज0न थ 2ग\u0010 नद स अग\u0010 ल क+ ओर स\u0019 यह य च\u0014क ध र 482 दण6 पक8य स\u0016दह क \u0019 प \u0010ध न9 क \u0019 ह पस / क+ ज कर आल'चय आद\u0019श ददन \u0016क 12.08.2016 क' \u0014/न \u0005 द\u000e गय\u0005 ह\u0019 जजसक \u0019 द र कक व\u0010द न अध\u0005नसथ तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय अपर स\u0019शन नय य ध\u0005श 8म- 4, जयप/र मह नगर न\u0019 य \u0014\u0005गण द र पस / तनगर न\u0005 य च\u0014क स\u0016खय 929/2016 क' भमय द ब हर म नकर अस\u0010\u0005क र कर ददय । व\u0010द न अचध\u0010क य \u0014\u0005गण श\u0005 मह\u0019न% ग'यल न\u0019 तन\u0010\u0019दन ककय ह0 कक व\u0010द न व\u0010\u0014 रण नय य लय म/खय मह नगर मजजस>\u0019ट (आचथ#क अपर ध), जयप/र मह नगर न\u0019 पकरण स\u0016खय 19/2004 म@ ददन \u0016क 04.09.2015 क' आद\u0019श प रर कर य \u0014\u0005गण क \u0019 व\u0010रद ध र 9(1)(ब\u0005), 9(1)(ब\u0005ब\u0005), 9(1)(ब\u0005ब\u0005ब\u0005) क \u0019 न%\u000eय उतप द श/लक अचधतनयम क \u0019 ह आर'प स/न य\u0019 ज न\u0019 क \u0019 पय #प और सम/च\u0014 आध र प \u0019 ह/ए आर'प स/न य\u0019 ज न\u0019 क आद\u0019श प रर ककय थ उक आद\u0019श क+ अन/प लन म@ ददन \u0016क 18.07.2016 क' आर'प व\u0010रच\u0014 ककय\u0019 गय\u0019। उनह9न\u0019 तन\u0010\u0019दन ककय ह0 कक आर'प ददन \u0016क 04.09.2015 क+ अन/प लन म@ ददन \u0016क 18.07.2016 क' आर'प व\u0010रच\u0014 ककय\u0019 ज न\u0019 क \u0019 ब द ददन \u0016क 11.08.2016 क' तनगर न\u0005 य च\u0014क प\u0019श क+ ज' भमय द म@ थ\u0005। इसक \u0019 ब \u0010जJद व\u0010द न तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय न\u0019 उस\u0019 भमय द ब हर म न \u0019 ह/ए अस\u0010\u0005क र करन\u0019 म@ त/दट क+ ह0। अ : य च\u0014क स\u0010\u0005क र क+ ज \u0010\u0019। व\u0010द न अचध\u0010क य \u0014\u0005 न\u0019 अपन\u0019 कL क \u0019 समथ#न म@ Jarnail Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1992 CriLJ810, The State of Maharastra vs. Chandrakant Annappa Shyanbhag and Anr. 1993(2) BomCR 211 थ M/s Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi and Others vs. J.S. Wagh and another 1981CriLJ454 क \u0019 नय तयक दष \u0016 प\u0019श ककय\u0019। उक थय9 क व\u0010र'ध कर \u0019 ह/ए व\u0010द न अचध\u0010क अय \u0014\u0005 श\u0005 3 कक \u0016 श/क ज0न न\u0019 आल'चय आद\u0019श क समथ#न कर \u0019 ह/ए तन\u0010\u0019दन ककय ह0 कक अभ2य/कगण क' आर'प स/न य\u0019 ज न\u0019 क+ ज नक र\u000e ददन \u0016क 04.09.2015 क \u0019 आद\u0019श द र ह' गय\u0005 थ\u0005। तपश उनक \u0019 द र अन\u0019क9 ब र ह जजर\u000e म फ+ क प थ#न पत नय य लय म@ प\u0019श ककय गय । अ : ददन \u0016क 04.09.2015 स\u0019 भमय द क+ गणन क+ ज न\u0005 \u0014 दहए। दन/स र तनगर न\u0005 य च\u0014क भमय द ब हर ह0। उनह9न\u0019 य च\u0014क अस\u0010\u0005क र ककय\u0019 ज न\u0019 क तन\u0010\u0019दन ककय । स/न गय । उ2य पक9 क \u0019 कL पर व\u0010\u0014 र ककय गय । Jarnail Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (उपर'क) क \u0019 पकरण म@ इस नय य लय क+ पJण# प\u0005ठ न\u0019 तनमन पक र स\u0019 अभ2तनध #रर ककय ह0- “Now, we may consider the nature of the order framing a charge. In a case instituted upon police report, a Magistrate is bound to discharge an accused, when he considers the charge against him to be 'groundless'. In cases instituted otherwise than on police report, a Magistrate is under a mandate to discharge the accused under Section 245, Cr.P.C. if he considers 'that no case has been made out which, if unrebutted warrant his conviction. Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court of Session shall discharge an accused if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. Under Section 228, Cr.P.C. a court of Session may frame a charge only when the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. Under all these provisions, framing of a charge tantamounts to telling the accused that a charge against him is prima facie made and he must face the trial. In other words, it is tantamount to rejection of the plea that accusation against him is groundless or no case has been made out against him, which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction or that there is no ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. In Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. v. State of Maharashtra 1972 SCC (Cri) 495 : 1972 Cri LJ 329, their Lordships said \"order framing the charges does substantially affect the persons and it is not possible to countenance the view 4 that the court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecution authorities, by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173, Cr.P.C. consider it proper to institute the case.\" In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 : 1977 Cri LJ 1125, we find echo of this very proposition. In V. C. Shukla, (1980 Cri LJ 690) (supra) also, this aspect was recognised in all the three judgments viz., the leading judgment, judgment of Hon'ble Desai, J. and judgment of Hon'ble P. N. Singhal, J. In the leading judgment. There can be no doubt that the stage of framing charges is an important stage and the court framing charge has to apply its mind judicially to the evidence or the material placed before it in order to make up its mind whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Mr. N. L. Kukkad urged vehemently that an order framing charge concludes the stage of enquiry preceding the trial and hence on this ground an order framing charge cannot be treated as an interlocutory one. He contends that proceedings prior to framing of the charge partake of the nature of an enquiry as defined in Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trial commences only after a charge is framed and the accused does not plead guilty or claims to be tried. He places reliance in this context on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Dalip Singh v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0148/1988, wherein it was held that proceedings prior to framing of charge fell within definition of inquiry as envisaged in Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This very view had been taken in an earlier decision of Kerala High Court reported in State of Kerala v. Achutha Panicker 1975 Ker LT 703. We find that a discharge, whether it be under Section 227 or under Section 239 or for that matter under Section 245, Cr.P.C. terminates the proceedings against the accused who has been discharged and in such event there arises no occasion for a trial, unless of course a superior court sets aside the order of discharge. To sum up, we find that an order framing charge is an order of moment; it deprives the liberty of a citizen and puts him to jeopardy of a trial. Such an order finally rejects the plea 5 of the accused that he is entitled to a discharge or that he is not liable to be tried. Such an order concludes the enquiry and the pre-trial proceedings against the accused. The order framing charge takes away a very valuable right of the accused. Hence, in our considered opinion, an order framing charge is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2), Cr.P.C. and such an order is amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of Session and the High Court under Section 397(1), Cr. P.C. We answer the reference accordingly.” The State of Maharastra vs. Chandrakant Annappa Shyanbhag and Anr. (उपर'क) क \u0019 पकरण म@ ब मब\u0019 उच\u0014 नय य लय क+ एकलप\u0005ठ न\u0019 अभ2तनध #रर ककय ह0 कक- “As far as accused Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they have been convicted on their plea of guilty. The instant case is a case filed on a private complaint and is triable as a warrant case. Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with trial of warrant cases. Sections 238 to 243 provide for procedure in respect of cases initiated on a police report and sections 244 to 247 provide for procedure in respect of cases instituted otherwise than on police report. The present case being a case instituted on a private complaint will, therefore, be governed by the provisions of sections 244to 247. Section 244(1) enjoins upon the Magistrate, on an accused appearing before him, to proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Section 245 entitles the Magistrate, if he finds that no case has been made out against the accused, to pass an order of discharge. If a Magistrate does not take action under section 245, he has to proceed under section 246. Section 246 provides that the Magistrate, if he is of an opinion that there is ground for, presuming that the accused has committed an offence which he is competent to try, he shall frame a charge against the accused. Sub-section (2) of section 246 enjoins a duty upon the Magistrate to read and 6 explain to the accused, the charge and ask him whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. Sub-section (3) of section 246 provides that if the accused pleads guilty the Magistrate shall record the plea and may in his discretion convict him thereon. It is not necessary to dilate on the further provisions as the same are not relevant for the present enquiry. The provisions of sections 244 to 246 show that the stage of recording the plea of the accused arise only after the stage of framing of a charge. Till such time that such a charge is framed the question of recording the plea of the accused does not arise. For, at that stage, there is no charge on which the accused can be called upon to putforth his plea. The accused can be called upon to plead guilty or not guilty to a charge specifically framed. He cannot be asked to plead guilty to the allegations which are merely contained in a complaint or are reflected in evidence recorded prior to the framing of charge. The plea of guilty of accused Nos. 1 and 3 recorded by the learned Magistrate is, therefore, clearly erroneous and deserves to be quashed. Their case will now be required to be remanded back to the trial Court for a trial in accordance with law.” इस\u0005 पक र M/s Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi and Others vs. J.S. Wagh and another (उपर'क) क \u0019 पकरण म@ बSमब\u0019 उच\u0014 नय य लय न\u0019 अभ2तनध #रर ककय ह0 कक- “The result, therefore, is that we record our answer in the negative by holding that an order framing a charge is not an \"inter-locutory order\" within the meaning of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The revision be placed before a concerned judge for decision on merits.” उपर'क नय तयक दष \u0016 9 क \u0019 पररप\u0019कय म@ ध र 245, 246 दण6 पक8य स\u0016दह क \u0019 प \u0010ध न9 क \u0019 अन/स र आर'प व\u0010रच\u0014 ककय\u0019 ज न\u0019 क \u0019 आद\u0019श म@ आर'प व\u0010रच\u0014 ककय ज न श भमल ह0। दन/स र 7 तनगर न\u0005 य च\u0014क क \u0019 भलए आर'प व\u0010रच\u0014 ककय\u0019 ज न\u0019 क \u0019 आद\u0019श क \u0019 स थ व\u0010रच\u0014 श/द आर'प 2\u0005 प\u0019श ककय ज न आ\u0010शयक ह0 और द'न9 क \u0019 अ\u0010ल'कन क \u0019 ब द ह\u000e तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय उस पर प2 \u0010\u0005 आद\u0019श प रर कर सक ह0। दन/स र आर'प व\u0010रच\u0014 ककय\u0019 ज न\u0019 क \u0019 ब द ह\u000e आर'प आद\u0019श पJण# म न ज ह0 और उस थय स\u0019 तनगर न\u0005 य च\u0014क अनदर भमय द ह'न पकट ह' ह0। जजस\u0019 व\u0010द न तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय न\u0019 भमय द ब हर म न\u0019 ज न\u0019 म@ त/दट क+ ह0। दन/स र तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय क उपर'क आल'चय आद\u0019श ददन \u0016क 12.08.2016 जसथर रहन\u0019 य'गय नह\u000e\u0016 प य ज ह0। दन/स र उपर'क नय तयक दष \u0016 9 क \u0019 पररप\u0019कम म@ आल'चय आद\u0019श ददन \u0016क 12.08.2016 क' अप स ककय ज कर पकरण व\u0010द न तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय क' इस तनदWश क \u0019 स थ प/न: पत प\u0019वX ककय ज ह0 कक \u0010ह पकरण क' भमय द अ\u0010चध म@ म न \u0019 ह/ए द'न9 पक9 क' स/नन\u0019 क \u0019 ब द ग/ण \u0010ग/ण पर व\u0010चध अन/स र आद\u0019श प रर कर@। द'न9 पक9 क \u0019 व\u0010द न अचध\u0010क गण तनगर न\u0005 नय य लय क \u0019 समक ददन \u0016क 16.12.2016 क' उपजसथ ह9। दन/स र य च\u0014क क तनस रण ककय ज ह0। (बन\u0010 र\u000e ल ल शम #) नय य चधपत भमतल/44 "