Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arif Ali s/o Yusuf Ali Sayyed, a police constable, was the original accused in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 before the learned Special Judge, Dhule, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged that he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 70,000 from one Biharilal Punamchand Agrawal as a reward to return the documents and key of the complainant's goods carriage truck. The charge was framed on 15.3.2011. The prosecution led evidence and closed it on 5.4.2012. Thereafter, defence witnesses were examined and the case was posted for arguments on 11.4.2012, but was adjourned from time to time. The petitioner filed an application (Exh. 54) under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking discharge, along with certain defence documents. The learned Special Judge rejected that application by order dated 12.7.2012, without considering the defence documents. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC to quash that order. The High Court heard both sides. The petitioner argued that the Special Judge failed to consider the defence documents which were crucial for discharge. The respondent State opposed the petition. The High Court, relying on the principle that at the stage of framing of charge, the court can consider defence documents if they are unimpeachable and can be looked into without weighing evidence, held that the Special Judge erred in not considering the defence documents. The High Court quashed the order dated 12.7.2012 and remitted the matter back to the Special Judge to decide the discharge application afresh after considering the defence documents, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Consideration of defence documents - The accused, a police constable charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC along with defence documents. The Special Judge rejected the application without considering those documents. The High Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court must consider not only the prosecution documents but also the defence documents if they are unimpeachable and can be considered without weighing evidence. The order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Offences - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Demand and acceptance of bribe - The petitioner was alleged to have demanded and accepted Rs. 70,000 from a complainant to return documents and keys of a truck. The High Court did not decide on merits but only on the procedural aspect of discharge. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without considering the defence documents produced by the accused at the stage of framing of charge.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhule below application Exh. 54 in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Special Judge, Dhule to decide the application (Exh. 54) afresh after considering the defence documents produced by the petitioner, in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Consideration of defence documents at discharge stage
- Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7
- 13(1)(d)
- 13(2)
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Section 482 CrPC
