K.S.GAREWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is facing trial before the learned Special Judge, Ambala for offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered vide RC 6/1998 by the CBI, Chandigarh. At this stage the learned trial Court is due to consider framing of the charges against the accused. The petitioner vide application dated July 19, 2001 had sought production of the complete record of RC 40/1997 including the statements of owners of flour mills in Haryana recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the petitioner recorded on November 19, 1998 along with his affidavit and the investigation record including summary of conclusions recorded by the CBI and submitted to the FCI for the purpose of obtaining sanction.
(2.) PRECISE argument of the petitioner is that in the earlier case, which was similar to the present one, the petitioner was not sent up for trial as he was placed in column 2. Therefore, the evidence collected during investigation in the case, which led to the conclusion by the CBI that the petitioner was not to the sent up for trial was necessary to be examined by the learned special Judge. In the present case at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. "The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before, it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offences, then the charge can be quashed." (as per State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 452 (SC) : 2000(6) Supreme Court Cases 328.) Reliance has also been placed on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 411 (SC) : 1996(9) Supreme Court Cases 766.
(3.) THE challenge in this petition is to the rejection of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the record and examining it for the purposes of framing of the charge. It would not be proper to examine the allegations in detail for fear of influencing the trial Court. However, the basic fact is that the allegations in RC 40/1997 were that Flour Mill Owners of Haryana had formed an association and passed on a bribe to Sh. R.K. Ranga, Senior Regional Manager, FCI through Surinder Kumar Tiku (petitioner herein) to secure certain benefits by violating the Open Market Sale Scheme (Domestic). The allegation in the present case is also that Surinder Kumar Tiku had received money from the flour mill owners and passed on the bribe to Sh. R.K. Ranga. The allegations appear to be similar. Therefore, the petitioner is certainly interested in showing to the trial Court that on similar allegations he was not sent up for trial and was placed in column 2. Consequently, whatever documents/statements which have been recorded in the earlier case are to be pressed into service to claim discharge in the present case.;