Must have:

share this post:

P.C ACT – SPECIAL JUDGE – DISCHARGE SHALL BE U/S 227 Cr.P.C AND NOT U/S 239 Cr.P.C

summary:

Points for consideration

  1. At the relevant stage, the Appellant applied for discharge under “section 239” of the Cr.P.C (which should have been under section 227) before the Court of Special Judge (vigilance), Patna.

[Editor’s note: Here in this paragraph 6. the Apex Court has made a foot note that though the Appellant stated that the application is under section 239 of the Cr.P.C as Special Judge appointed under the PC Act are deemed to be Court of Session, the discharge application should have been filed under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and not under section 239 therein. The Ld counsel for the Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar, Senior Advocate clarified this position of law while making his submissions].

xxx

  1. Issue: The short question arising for consideration is whether the Appellant is entitled to be discharged of the proceedings initiated against him under the PC Act. However, the Court summarily dismissed the application by its order dated 28.03.2016, without analysing or examining the documents produced and the arguments advanced.

xxx

DISCHARGE – ROVING ENQUIRY – EXPLAINED: 18. The conclusions that we have drawn are based on materials placed before us, which are part of the case record. This is the same record that was available with the Special Judge (Vigilance) when the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was taken up. Despite that, the Special Judge (Vigilance) dismissed the discharge application on the simple ground that a roving inquiry is not permitted at the stage of discharge. What we have undertaken is not a roving inquiry, but a simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge. The Special Judge (Vigilance) was bound to conduct a similar inquiry for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the Appellant to stand trial. Unfortunately, the High Court committed the same mistake as that of the Special Judge (Vigilance).

PARTY: KANCHAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 9601 OF 2016 – September 14, 2022.

Source: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/39660/39660_2016_2_1501_38228_Judgement_14-Sep-2022.pdf

URL:

Related Posts

No Posts Found!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe For News

Get the latest sports news from News Site about world, sports and politics.

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Subscribe For More!

Get the latest and creative news updates on criminal law...

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Disclaimer:

Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.

For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.

© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES

Crypto wallet - Game Changer

Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.