Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Asadjamal @ Irfan @ Dada s/o Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, was one of the accused in Sessions Case No.51 of 2012, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Gangakhed, which was clubbed with Sessions Case No.32 of 2012. The applicant filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that there was absolutely no material for proceeding against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 30.8.2013, rejected the application and directed charge to be framed against all accused persons, including the applicant, for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) by way of a criminal revision application. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The court examined the material on record and found that there was no evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged offences. The court observed that the applicant's mere presence at the scene, without any knowledge or possession of counterfeit currency, did not constitute a prima facie case. The court held that the trial court's order was erroneous and unsustainable. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the applicant was discharged from the case. The court directed that the applicant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; if the evidence does not disclose the commission of an offence or the accused's involvement, discharge must be granted. Held that the trial court's order rejecting discharge was erroneous as there was no material linking the applicant to the counterfeit currency or the cheating. (Paras 5-7) B) Indian Penal Code - Section 489B - Counterfeit Currency - Prima Facie Case - For an offence under Section 489B, the accused must be shown to have used or possessed counterfeit currency with knowledge or belief that it is counterfeit. Mere presence at the scene without such knowledge or possession is insufficient. Held that the applicant was entitled to discharge as the material did not indicate his involvement. (Paras 5-7) C) Indian Penal Code - Section 420 read with 34 - Cheating - Common Intention - To attract Section 34, there must be evidence of a common intention to commit the offence. In the absence of any act or omission by the applicant showing participation in the cheating, no charge can be framed. Held that the trial court's order was unsustainable. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the applicant's discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and directing framing of charges under Sections 489B and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, despite absence of any material showing the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, is quashed and set aside. The applicant is discharged from Sessions Case No.51 of 2012 (and the clubbed Sessions Case No.32 of 2012). The applicant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Standard of proof at charge stage
- Section 489B IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
