Case Note & Summary
The applicant, R. Venkatesan, filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay, dated November 20, 2003, which rejected his discharge application in a pending trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge had rejected the application solely on the ground that the applicant was an absconding accused, against whom proclamation proceedings had been taken and non-bailable warrants were pending. The applicant had been avoiding arrest and was residing in the USA. The moot question before the High Court was whether the lower court's approach in rejecting the discharge application merely because the applicant was an absconding accused was sustainable. The applicant's counsel argued that even if the accused is absconding, the trial court is obligated to sift the evidence to ascertain whether a charge ought to be framed, and the fact of absconding should not influence the decision on discharge. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the right to be heard on a discharge application is not forfeited by the accused's absconding status. The court must consider the application on its own merits based on the material produced before it. The impugned order was set aside, and the Special Judge was directed to decide the discharge application afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant's counsel. The revision application was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge Application - Absconding Accused - Sections 227, 239 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court held that an absconding accused cannot be denied the right to be heard on a discharge application; the court must consider the application on its merits based on the material on record, uninfluenced by the fact that the accused is absconding. The Special Judge's order rejecting the discharge application solely on the ground that the applicant was an absconding accused was set aside. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an absconding accused is entitled to be heard on his discharge application and whether the court can reject the discharge application solely on the ground that the accused is absconding.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated November 20, 2003 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay is set aside. The Special Judge is directed to decide the discharge application afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant's counsel. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Right of absconding accused to be heard on discharge application
- Duty of court to consider discharge application on merits
- Section 227 CrPC
- Section 239 CrPC
