Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 1095 - HC - Indian LawsShortage of Iron Ores - Presumption of existence of a prima facie case against these petitioners for commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - framing of charges - HELD THAT:- The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court for the purpose is not required to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. It becomes necessary to address the last limb of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the documents placed on record being gone through. It may be stated that said documents are not disputed. The petitioners having filed the certified copy of the order of the Revisional Authority in connection with the proceeding pursuant to the very same joint inspection and verification report before the trial court in support of that point raised for their discharge, the prosecution had nothing to dispute as to factum of passing of said order. The shortages 3,04,568.175 MT as alleged/found in the impugned Proceedings are not only unsubstantiated but also have been found to be alleged in contradiction to state Govt.’s own records. When the figures of three sources viz. Revisionist, IBM and departmental tally with each other, allegations of shortages based on these figures cannot sustain. Revisionist’s contention that in the impugned Proceedings quantity transferred for processing/crushing from the existing stock has been accounted twice by the Department for Feb., Mar, June, July and Sept. months of year 2009 and which she has also explained with statutory returns (Annex.- F to I). Thus she has successfully demonstrated and explained where department has erred. It has added to the merit in her contention - Revisionist has produced 29,18,431 MT of iron ore, whereas only 8,49,589.56 MT can be produced from the excavated pits, as stated above there is no basis given in the impugned Proceedings or in the reply. Nor any document/ evidence in support has been given to the Revisionist or filed before Revision Authority. The order dated 28.07.2018 which has been impugned in this revision cannot be sustained - Revision disposed off.
|