Supreme Court upholds order against IPS officer in assets case

Says he is entitled to produce materials in defence only after start of trial
CBI had filed a charge sheet against the officer of the West Bengal cadre at Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court had dismissed his revision petition against CBI Judge’s order
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has upheld a designated CBI court’s decision to frame charges against a West Bengal cadre IPS officer in a disproportionate assets case.
Rejecting the plea of the 1971 batch officer, Hem Chand, to produce materials in his defence, a Bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar said the officer, who was facing corruption charges, was entitled to produce the purported material after the start of the trial but not at the pre-trial stage.
Limited jurisdiction
“The court, at the stage of framing charges, exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out,” the court said.
On August 31, 1992, the CBI officials raided Mr. Chand’s residence when he was was the Executive Director (Vigilance), Central Coalfields Ltd. in Jharkhand.
Based on the materials seized, the CBI filed a charge sheet in the designated CBI court in Jharkhand.
Application
The officer later filed an application before the CBI court for his discharge by placing before it certain documents, which he claimed, established his innocence. But the pleas were rejected.
He filed a revision application against the CBI Judge’s order.
This was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court and after this he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Upholding the designated CBI court’s decision, the Supreme Court said: “The stage for appreciating the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused or not would arise only after all the evidences are brought on records at the trial.”
Earlier rulings cited
Citing its earlier rulings, the Supreme Court said the crystallised judicial view was that at the stage of framing of charges, the court had to prima facie consider whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The court was not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced were sufficient or not for convicting the accused, the court said while dismissing Mr. Chand’s appeal. — PTI
THE HINDU; Friday, Mar 21, 2008