Case: UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHYAMAL CHAKRAVARTY

4. Charges, as aforesaid, against the accused respondents were framed by an order dated 8th March, 2013. The learned trial Court had rejected the application for discharge filed by the accused. The said order dated 8th March, 2013 was challenged before the High Court. During the pendency of the said challenge before the High Court, in the absence of any interim order, the learned trial Court framed charges, as aforesaid, by order dated 29th April, 2013 which was also called into question. The High Court having accepted the challenge, the Union of India as well as the State of Jharkhand are before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
5. We have perused the materials on record and have considered the submissions advanced at the bar. We have specifically taken note of the findings of the learned trial Court recorded in the order dated 8th March, 2013 refusing to discharge the accused respondents. We do not find any consideration of the aforesaid findings of the learned trial Court in its order dated 8th March, 2013 in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The principal basis on which the High Court seems to have proceeded is that in the absence of any allegations against the company of which the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (Bhalotias) were the Directors, the criminal proceedings against the said respondents would not be maintainable. Insofar as the accused respondent No.1 - Shyamal Chakravarty is concerned the High Court recorded the view that apart from submitting bids on behalf of three firms with antedated cheques there is no other allegation against the accused respondent No.1.6. We do not consider it proper to record any finding on the aforesaid views expressed by the High Court and the contentions advanced at the bar, save and except to say that we do not agree with the High Court that the case merited interdiction at the threshold as has been done. It is our considered view that having regard to the materials on record the proceedings against the accused respondents should have been allowed to continue and the truth should have been permitted to be unravelled in the course of the full-fledged trial.