Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arun Namdeo Ghorpade, filed a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 8th June 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the MCOC Act), Nashik, below Exhibit 365 in Special (MCOC) Case No. 1 of 2016, and consequently the order framing charge dated 8th June 2022 passed below Exhibit 372. The appellant's grievance was that the order rejecting his discharge application was not a reasoned order and that the learned Judge did not consider the submissions advanced by the appellant's Advocate in support of his discharge. Further, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to challenge the order of discharge, the trial court immediately proceeded to frame charges against the appellant and other co-accused on the very same day, soon after rejecting the discharge application by an order which could hardly be said to be a speaking order. The learned APP fairly stated that the order could hardly be said to be on merits and did not dispute that pursuant to framing of charge, no steps had been taken for recording of evidence. The High Court perused the order dated 8th June 2022 and noted that the learned Judge in the one page order, in paragraph 3, while rejecting the appellant's discharge application, observed that the chargesheet was filed in the year 2016 and the matter was posted for framing of charge, and that there is a prima facie case against the accused, more particularly when there is a sanction order granted by the Competent Authority under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act. The High Court found that it prima facie appeared that none of the submissions as to applicability of the MCOC Act had been considered by the learned Judge. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to reconsider the discharge application on its own merits, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, within four weeks from the date of the order. The High Court also directed that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge Application - Section 227 CrPC - Reasoned Order - The trial court's order rejecting the discharge application was a one-page order that did not consider the submissions of the appellant regarding the applicability of the MCOC Act. The court held that such an order cannot be said to be a speaking order and that the provision of Section 227 seeking discharge is rendered otiose by the learned Judge's action. (Paras 3-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Opportunity to Challenge - The trial court framed charge on the same day soon after rejecting the discharge application, without giving the appellant an opportunity to challenge the order. The High Court set aside both the order rejecting discharge and the order framing charge, and directed the trial court to reconsider the discharge application on merits. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a reasoned order and whether the trial court could frame charge immediately after rejecting the discharge application without giving an opportunity to challenge the order.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 8th June 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the MCOC Act), Nashik, below Exhibit 365 and Exhibit 372. The court directed the trial court to reconsider the discharge application (Exhibit 365) on its own merits, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, within four weeks from the date of the order. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by any of the observations made in the order.
Law Points
- Discharge application under Section 227 CrPC must be decided by a reasoned order
- Non-speaking order rejecting discharge renders Section 227 otiose
- Opportunity to challenge discharge order before framing charge is essential
