TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order dated 26th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 3, 10, 19, 21 and 22 of 2007, whereby the High Court while setting aside the charges framed by the learned Special Judge, Panaji against the Accused--Appellants for the offences punishable Under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code and directed to frame charges against them Under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. 2. In a nutshell, the genesis of the dispute in all these appeals pertains to a Notification dated 30th September, 1991 issued by the Government of Goa, duly approved by the Cabinet, according to which tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on a complaint lodged by an M.L.A., the State levelled allegations against the Accused individuals that by entering into a criminal conspiracy they provided wrongful gains to both the Appellant Companies (Accused Nos. 6 & 7) and favored the two Companies for availing 25% rebate on power tariff by illegal means and thereby caused huge loss of Rs. 4,52,77,856/- to the exchequer of Government of Goa. 5. Taking note of the allegations levelled against the accused, the Special Judge, Panaji by order dated 8th December, 2006 framed charges against the Accused--Appellants for the offences punishable Under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and also Under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds thus: The High Court by the impugned judgment has held that the circular dated 31st March, 1998 issued by the Government of Goa suspending the release of rebate with immediate effect as well as suspension of rebate agreed to be governed in sixty monthly installments has no legal efficacy and is, therefore, invalid. The High Court has further held that the notification dated 24th July, 1998 is legal and valid. Consequently the High Court directed that the writ Petitioners are entitled to 25% rebate in power tariff till 26th July, 1998. This has been challenged by means of the present appeals. Second set of appeals have been filed by the writ Petitioners against the judgment of the High Court whereby and whereunder the High Court has hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....312 of 2011 submitted that as a matter of fact, the complaint in question was already closed on 2.2.1999, but to meet the political will of the complainant when he came to power in the State, the complaint was reopened at his instance. The view taken by the Courts below in framing charges against the Accused is entirely wrong inasmuch as the trial Court made an observation that the circumstances give rise to suspicion that Accused Nos. 1 to 5 conspired to extend benefit to the Accused Nos. 6 & 7 Companies. Mere suspicion does not warrant framing of charges against the Appellants, learned Counsel wrongly placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, (2003) 5 SCC 257 and submitted that by virtue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty prepared a false document giving an appearance of genuine one and deceived the Government in taking policy decision and enabled the Accused Companies to avail 25% rebate on power supply. He ultimately made a submission that taking note of misdeeds of all the accused, the High court has in clear terms expressed the opinion that there is sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against all the accused, hence there is no occasion for this Court to interfere and revisit the matter. 12. At the outset it would be pertinent to note the law concerning the framing of charges and the standard which courts must apply while framing charges. It is well settled that a court while framing charges Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Proce....