Case Title: Dharam Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: Cr. Revision No. 751 of 2024 | Decided on 12.05.2025 | 2025:HHC:14250
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice [Name Not Provided]

Background:

The petitioner, Dharam Chand, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the order of the Special Judge-II, Mandi, which had dismissed his discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now corresponding to Section 262 BNSS.

The case arose from FIR No. 10/2002, registered under allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public property by officials of the Himachal Pradesh Milk Federation. It was alleged that during the year 1995–96, while the petitioner was in charge of the Milk Chilling Centre, Kataula, he misappropriated milk meant for delivery to the Mandi unit. Instead, he allegedly sold the milk en route and failed to deposit the proceeds, causing a financial loss of ₹1,07,198/- to the Federation.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Delay in Prosecution:
   The petitioner had retired in 2006, but the charge sheet (final report) was filed only in 2011, thereby causing prejudice due to inordinate delay.
2. Violation of Right to Fair Trial – Section 207 CrPC / Section 230 BNSS:
   The petitioner contended that he was not provided with complete copies of all relevant documents as mandated under Section 207 CrPC, now replaced by Section 230 BNSS, which affected his right to prepare an effective defence.
3. No Prima Facie Case – Section 227 CrPC / Section 262 BNSS:
   It was argued that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, especially since superior officers had approved and verified the bills and records, indicating no criminal intent or misappropriation.
4. Illegality of Suo Motu Investigation Order – Section 173(8) CrPC / Section 193(10) BNSS:
   The petitioner challenged the suo motu direction of the trial court for further investigation after taking cognizance of the offence, asserting that this exceeded judicial powers.

High Court’s Observations and Findings:

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, endorsing the trial court’s order directing further investigation.

1. Suo Motu Power of Magistrate – Section 173(8) CrPC:
   Referring to the decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that a Magistrate is empowered to order further investigation even after cognizance has been taken, to ensure a fair and complete investigation.
   • This power arises under Section 173(8) CrPC, now reflected under Section 193(10) of BNSS, 2023.
   • The Court linked this power with the fundamental right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Right to Documents – Section 207 CrPC:
   On the allegation of denial of documents, the Court held that such grievances should be raised at an appropriate stage, and cannot alone invalidate the proceedings at the stage of discharge.
3. Prima Facie Evidence:
   The High Court noted that the materials on record, including the statements and preliminary findings, warranted further investigation, and discharge under Section 227 CrPC was not appropriate.
4. Delay in Filing Chargesheet:
   The Court held that while delay is a factor to be considered, mere delay does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is clearly shown, which was not established by the petitioner.

Court Held:

The criminal revision petition under Section 442 BNSS was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s direction for further investigation, affirming the view that judicial intervention is necessary to secure the ends of justice, especially in corruption cases involving public servants.