The Tripura High Court has recently dismissed a criminal revision petition, upholding denial of discharge of the accused in a case where they were alleged to have demanded tax money in the name of an extremist group.
The counsel for the petitioners urged that the trial court has rejected the application for discharge on the ground that there are sufficient materials found during investigation to proceed against them for the alleged offences but it failed to appreciate that the allegations in the chargesheet reveal that the petitioners are the victims of the instant case and cannot be chargesheeted under any of the penal provisions.
Counsel for the petitioner further buttressed his submissions by relying upon the relevant contents of the charge sheet in order to submit that the petitioners were involved in construction of border roads/fencing, etc.
It was also submitted that the materials collected during investigation reveal that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were found sitting inside the vehicle along with the Driver Suman Majumder, petitioner No.3, when they were apprehended with Rs.15,00,000/- currency notes wrapped in a paper which as per the instructions of their boss were to be handed over to the accused person,Sona Mohan Tripura @Mitrafa.
The charge sheet further reveals that during investigation they admitted that they were paying this amount to the banned NLFT extremist group out of fear to protect their laborers from the attack of the NLFT extremists, the petitioner counsel added.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and submitted that, during the course of investigation it was further revealed that Sri Rangchak Tripura was threatened by Sumen Kanti Tripura @ Hero, alleged NLFT(BM) extremist and spoke of extortion. Joydeb Saha and Nupur Banik of Raishyabari were examined and it was revealed that Sumen Kanti Tripura @ Hero had threatened them by calling and sending voice calls in their mobile number which belonged to NLFT(BM) extremist Sumen Kanti Tripura @ Hero and two other mobile numbers and on several occasions spoke of extortion with a view to send money to banned NLFT (BM) extremist group. Another witness namely Bikram Saha of Gandacherra has revealed that the alleged miscreant had also threatened him and demanded Tax money in the name of an extremist group by calling him on his mobile number.
The public prosecutor specifically referred to the ingredients of Section 10(a)(iii) of the UA(P)A and submitted that the ingredients of the offenses against the accused persons-petitioners herein, are made out since they have admitted of being involved in payment of huge amounts to the banned NLFT extremist group and have not informed the police or took the help of the security forces and thereby assisted the banned NLFT extremist group.
It was also submitted that as per the principles settled by the Apex Court at the stage of discharge, the trial court is not required to conduct a mini trial by marshaling the evidence on record.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar observed that, the principles of law which emerge from a combined reading of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court show that the trial court at the stage of considering the question of framing of charge under Section 227 of the CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
It was noted that, “having regard to the proposition of law applicable to the case at hand, it cannot be said that the materials collected by the investigating agency do not make out even a prima facie case for the purposes of discharging the petitioners.”
“As such, this court after careful consideration of the submission of the parties, the materials placed on record and the reasons recorded hereinabove, is satisfied that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 20.01.2023 rejecting the application for discharging the petitioners does not require any interference, in exercise of the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the CrPC”, the Tripura High Court held.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
