Sanjib Banerjee, J.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of an order passed on January 9, 2009 and the entire proceedings against the petitioner. In particular, the petitioner questions the addition of charges against the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. The petitioner has been implicated in an incident that took place at the old Chatham jetty on the night of March 19-20, 2008. It appears from the police version of things that certain persons had assembled in dinghies Containing drums to illegally remove diesel fuel from ''M.V. Philokunji'' berthed at the jetty, with the connivance of the captain and other hands on the vessel. The petitioner was the greaser on the ship.
3. According to the police version, a patrol party accidentally hit upon a dinghy tied to the vessel whereupon a scuffle ensued in course of one of the smaller boats breaking the line and getting away and the other smaller boats attempting to follow suit. In the unconnected part of the incident that the police reports, one of the police personnel was struck and pushed into the water. A number of persons were implicated including the captain of the vessel and some of the hands on board. Three of the ship''s personnel named to have been on board, applied for discharge u/s 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code upon the matter being committed to the Sessions Court. One of them is the petitioner, challenging the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him by way of the present revision.
4. The learned Sessions Judge gleaned the substance of the charges leveled against the petitioner herein and his other mates on board and concluded that a prima facie case had been made out from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the ship hands had committed criminal breach of trust in the matter of removal of high speed diesel oil; that they were part of a criminal conspiracy in allowing misappropriation of Government property; and, the prayer for their discharge was thus liable to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge opined that there was good ground to proceed against, inter alia, the petitioner herein u/s 409/393/353/120B of the Penal Code. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which an order of February 12, 2009 has been disclosed. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to the charges against each of the 17 accused persons and has framed the charges against the petitioner for having committed offences u/s 409 read with section 120B; section 353 read with section 34; and, section 392 read with section 120B of the Penal Code.
5. The petitioner says that the State had suggested charges only u/s 409/34 of the Penal Code against the petitioner and despite it being apparent, even on the State''s account, that the petitioner was only a bit player in the entire scheme of things, not only has the prayer of discharge been disallowed but the charges have been considerably enhanced.
6. The petitioner refers to the charge sheet dated May 16, 2008 and says that he was only found to be attempting to hide behind a staircase in the vessel and there was no question of the petitioner having prima facie been found to have participated in the misappropriation of Government property, far less the petitioner''s involvement in causing any injury to any police personnel in course of such person discharging public duty or deterring any official from discharging his official duty. The petitioner says that the petitioner is not named as being part of the group that was involved in using force against any police personnel, nor is the petitioner named as one of the persons who had attempted to snatch the wireless sets from the police officials. The petitioner says that his incidental presence on board the vessel has been based for a gamut of imaginary charges being pressed against him.
7. On behalf of the State it is submitted that there is sufficient indication in the charge sheet that the petitioner was involved in acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The State says that it is irrelevant as to whether the petitioner actually assaulted any police official or the petitioner was found to have off loaded the diesel from the vessel into the containers in the four dinghies. The submission is that since all the persons who were apprehended were part of the group which had assembled with the unholy intention of illegally removing diesel from the Government vessel, the petitioner is liable for the criminal acts committed in the same manner as if such acts were done by the petitioner himself.
8. The essence of the liability u/s 34 of the Penal Code is the existence of a common intention goading the accused to the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. On the police version of things there appears, prima facie, to be a common intention in the sense that the entire transaction was pre-planned. It also appears plausible, on a reading of the police version, that the petitioner may have participated in some manner in the acts complained of. At the very least, it appears that the petitioner acted in concert with the other accused and assisted in the transaction complained of. Once such an inference is reasonably drawn, it is possible to accept that the petitioner may be proceeded against for criminal breach of trust by a public servant; for assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty; for committing or attempting to commit robbery; and, for being part of a criminal conspiracy. The charge sheet is also replete with allegations of all the accused having proceeded to indulge in a criminal act with a common intention.
9. In the backdrop of the case as presented to the learned Sessions Judge, the inevitable conclusion was that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.
10. The expression "there is not sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests that no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is any ground whatsoever to sustain the charges. The Sessions Judge has to be certain that the trial would be an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. It is only upon such opinion being formed may the proceedings be nipped in the bud, not only in the interest of the accused but for greater public good. Section 227 of the Code is a beneficial provision to save an accused from the unnecessary harassment of a protracted trial. It also recognizes the scope for assessment by the Sessions Judge as to whether public money and time be permitted to be spent on a frivolous cause. Once the Sessions Judge finds a strong suspicion justifying framing of the charges, an application u/s 227 of the Code for discharge has only to fail.
11. It appears from the reasoning furnished by the learned Sessions Judge that it was his opinion that sufficient grounds existed to suspect commission of the offence by the petitioner herein. There does not appear to be any legal infirmity in either the reasoning or in the subsequent framing of the charges.
12. The sufficiency of grounds within the meaning of section 227 of the Code is at complete variance with the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" that is applied at the trial. If it is possible for a reasonable person to infer from the case record that the accused may have committed the crime, then it suffices and to trial must the accused proceed. For the limited purpose of the enquiry in these proceedings, without causing any prejudice to the defence that may be carried at the trial, there appears to be sufficient material to sustain both the general view taken by the learned Sessions Judge and the specific charges that have been brought against the petitioner.
13. The revisional application fails.
14. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with requisite formalities.
