Boutique Litigation Law Firm - Retain Lawyers - Research based Law Firm - Complete legal services

Criminal Lawyer: The SC reaffirms framing of charges against Tarun Tejpal by the trial Court.

Supreme Court of India

Justice M R Shah, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice B R Gavai

The SC {Tarun Jit Tejpal v. The State of Goa & Anr.} while rejecting the appeal against the dismissal of application for discharge holds that considering the scope of enquiry at the stage of framing of the charge under Section 227/228 of the CrPC,  the   submissions made by   the   learned  Counsel   appearing on behalf of the appellant on merits, at this stage, are not required to be considered.  It was further held that whatever submissions are made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are on merits are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the course of the trial. It was held that   some   of   the   submissions   may   be   considered   to   be   the defence of the accused and some of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the conduct of the victim/prosecutrix are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the trial. The same are not required to be considered at this stage of framing of the charge. It was held that there is more than a prima facie case against the accused for which he is required to be tried and   there   is  sufficient   ample   material   against   the   accused   and therefore the learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused and the same is rightly confirmed by the High Court and no interference of the SC is called for.

That it was reaffirmed in the present case that the three Judge Bench of the SC held that the decision of the SC in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab would be   applicable prospectively and   the   same   shall   not affect criminal   prosecutions,  trials   and   appeals and, therefore, any prosecution initiated prior to the decision in the said case shall not be vitiated, for the reason,  that the complainant and the investigating officer are one and same.

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published