The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order rejecting the discharge application of a terror accused with Lashkar-e-Taiba links by applying the Threshold Test of Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

The High Court made it clear that the the Special Court had given reasons not only in referring to the contents of the Charge Sheet in detail but also to the evidence on record grouped into “Oral”, “Material” and “Technical” evidence stating the role of the appellant/accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by other accused persons who were traced to a Pakistan-based Terrorist Organization.

The Criminal Appeal arose out of a Trial Court Order dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under section 227 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.) for discharging the appellant for the alleged offences under section 120B of The Indian Penal Code (IPC); sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA Act) and sections 4, 5 and 6 of The Explosives Substances, 1908 (1908 Act).

The Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Surepalli Nanda asserted, “It cannot be said that the Special Court has either acted as a mouthpiece of the Prosecution or mechanically accepted the contentions of the Prosecution in dismissing the Discharge Petition. The reasons for forming the prima facie view are writ large in the body of the impugned order.”

Advocate Pattabhi Vemulapati represented the Appellant while Special Public Prosecutor P.Vishnuvardhana represented the Respondent-State.

The appellant, in this case, was accused of conspiring to wage war against India by acts including meeting the other accused persons at Al-Marjaan Restaurant, Hyderabad, where the appellant allegedly received hand grenades from the other accused persons. The Chargesheet alleged that the appellant planned to hurl the grenades at a public gathering during Dussehra following instructions from the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives. Charges were framed against the appellant for conspiracy, committing terrorist acts, membership of terrorist gang and giving support to a terrorist organisation and possession of explosive substances.

The appellant was charged under sections 120B of the IPC, sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA Act and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1908 Act. The appellant sought discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. primarily on the ground that the Prosecution was not able to make out a case against the appellant. The Trial Court dismissed the petition on the premise that the investigation material, prima facie, revealed involvement of the appellant.

At the outset, the Bench placed Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. within the statutory framework in terms of its object and mandate. It was explained that the Cr.P.C. contemplates discharge of the accused at 3 different stages of the proceedings. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates discharge in a case triable before a Court of Session; Section 239 contemplates discharge on cases instituted upon considering police report and section 245 contemplates cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. It was also made clear by the Bench that Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. requires the Prosecutor to open his case as to the Charge and the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to rely on to prove the guilt of the accused and describe the Charge against the accused.

“Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. comes into play once the Prosecutor has played his role under section 226 of the Cr.P.C. Section 227 requires the Court of Session to consider the record of the case, the documents submitted along with the case and to hear the submissions of the accused and the Prosecution in relation to the record/ documents.The Judge shall then consider whether sufficient ground has been made out for proceeding against the accused. The accused shall be discharged if the Court is satisfied of this count by an order recording the reasons for the discharge”, it said.

The Court mentioned that Section 227 is part of the legislative effort to cut out frivolous prosecution and to prevent the accused being tried of an offence which is not corroborated by evidence. The salutary object of Section 227 is to expedite disposal of criminal cases. Noting that Section 227 of the Cr.P.C requires independent application of judicial mind, the Bench also held that the scope of section 227 makes it evident that the Court of Session must exercise its independent judicial mind to come to the conclusion that the accused should either be discharged or committed for trial.

The provisions in the Cr.P.C. for discharge of an accused i.e., under Sections 227, 239 and 245 stipulate the recording of reasons for discharge. “The legislative prescription in Section 227 for recording of reasons for discharge of an accused is a sine qua non for the order passed by the Court of Session”, it added.

One of the main issues before the Bench was whether the impugned order cross the Threshold Test of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. On a perusal of the Order, the Bench observed that the impugned order was replete with reasons. The Special Court stated the facts in detail including those leading to the appellant’s arrest by the State Police and seizure of a hand grenade from the appellant’s possession.

The Special Court also referred to the facts revealed from the investigation that the appellant joined the LeT in Hyderabad for carrying out terrorist attacks during Dussehra and took a hand grenade from the accused No.1 for that purpose. It was also noticed that it was mentioned in the Order that the NIA filed the Charge Sheet after an investigation based on the collective oral and documentary evidence of the appellant conspiring with other accused persons and being a part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the LeT-operatives based in Pakistan.

The Bench further added,“Although this Court is not inclined to delve into the factual details recorded in the impugned order for the simple reason that charges are yet to be framed, the evidence brought by the Prosecution including the CCTV footage of the petitioner in the company of the other accused and the recovery of a hand-grenade from the appellant’s possession constitutes sufficient basis for formation of the prima facie view for framing of charges.”

As per the Bench, the evidence brought before the Special Court was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of the involvement of the appellant and is certainly not a case where the appellant was able to rebut the evidence by showing that there was no case against the appellant at all.

Thus, holding that the impugned order did not warrant interference, the Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeal.

Cause Title: Maaz Hassan Farooq Maaz v. The State of Telangana (Case No. CRLA 427/2024)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Pattabhi Vemulapati, Shaik Mohammed Rizwan Akhtar

Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy

Click here to read/download Order:


Telangana High CourtJustice Moushumi BhattacharyaJustice Surepalli NandaCode of Criminal Procedure

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.