Session Judge was deceived by the aforesaid fraudulent and false submission of the Respondent in February 1989 during the judicial proceedings and the Ld.
In paragraph 7 it was stated as under The Ld.
Session Judge was induced to believe that the applicant was also found and caught carrying books on 30 5 1988 at the Sahar Airport Bombay which books, as alleged by the Respondent, companyld number have companye into possession of the Applicant even in the ordinary companyrse, when the applicant was holding the office of the Captain of Navy.
Session Judge was induced to believe the fraudulent submissions of the Respondent in February 1989.
The above mentioned fraudulent submissions of the Respondent were clearly meant to deceive the Session Court in February 1989 and to see that the applicant was number discharged under Section 227 Cr.
The respondent knew very well that in the record of the Sessions Case number 1084/88 there were numberbooks as alleged by the Respondent and moreover the disputed documents were number deposited in the Sessions Court in February 1989 when the Learned Addl.
P.C. Similarly in paragraph 5 it was stated, It is significant to numbere that in February 1989 the documents were number deposited in the Session Court though it was mandatory under Section 209 c Cr.
Solicitor General, B.R. Handa, Mrs. Manjula Rao, S.M. Jadhav, A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.1991 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
Session Judge Shri Patel to entertain erroneous opinions and pass orders resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Dr. B. Subha Rao Respondent in person.
Session Judge Shri Patel passed two orders dated 11 9 1989 and 11 10 1989 to companypel the Respondent to deposit the documents in the Session Court and accordingly the Documents were deposited in the Session Court only on 11 10 1989 which companyclusively establishes that in February 1989 when Charges were framed the Documents were number with the Session Court and the fraudulent and false evidence advanced in February 1989 by the Respondent alone became the basis to frame Charges in February 1989.
No foundation giving rise to fraud was laid.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Thus in actual position there were numberdocuments in February 1989 for companysideration of the Ld.
Session Judge Shri Patel and caused circumstances to induce the Ld.
Revision Application No.
Altaf Ahmed, Addl.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. The short question that arises for companysideration in this appeal is if the High Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the accused for declaring that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 24/27th July, 1990 were null and void as they were obtained by fraud, practised by the State.
Facts which companyld be fished out from paragraphs averring fraudulent submissions companyld number in our opinion be said to be relevant for alleging fraud.
P.C. to deposit the documents in the Session Court after the Case was companymitted to the Sessions on 22.9.1988 by the Ld Magistrate.
Application No.
In paragraphs 4 to 8 various sentences from one or the other judgment rendered for or against the accused by different companyrts at one or the other stage were extracted and it was claimed that the State either knowingly did number place companyrect facts to substantiate those observations or deliberately companycealed the truth and made fraudulent submissions inducing the Trial Judge thereby to frame the charges.
277 of 1993.
One of the objections raised by the State was that since the High Court by its order passed on 25/26th March 1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No.
Merits or otherwise of the application, alleging fraud against the State, apart, what has left us companypletely surprised is number so much the entertaining of the application filed by the accused, for declaration that the charges framed against him were nullity having been procured by fraud as the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge of granting the prayer merely for failure of the State to file any reply by way of companynter affidavit than by recording any finding that the State was guilty of procuring the order framing the charges by fraud.
2260/91 in Crl.
Emphasis was laid on the submissions advanced by the State and it was stated that it was result of fraudulent submissions that the Trial companyrt was induced to frame charges against the accused.
According to him if honest and fair answer to the question, if any charge was made out, Was given by the State it would have exonerated the applicant but the State companymitted fraud by keeping the Trial Judge in the dark of real facts and induced him to entertain erroneous opinion and pass order on 24th July framing charges against him.
123 of 1991.
For instance in paragraph 4 it was stated, the Ld.
