Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, Balam Gulab Pathan, was the original accused in a sessions case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The trial court, on the same day, framed the charge and rejected the discharge application, holding that the application was devoid of merit as the charge had already been framed. The revision petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the parties and observed that the trial court had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C., which require a hearing on the point of charge before framing it. The court relied on the judgment in Vikrant Rajkumar Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 ALL MR (Cri.) 1752, which held that it is mandatory to comply with Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C. prior to framing of charge. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the discharge application and for hearing on the point of charge in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Sections 226, 227 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Mandatory Hearing - The trial court framed charge without hearing the accused on the point of charge and rejected the discharge application on the ground that charge had already been framed - Held that compliance with Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C. is mandatory before framing of charge in a sessions case - The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court can frame charge without hearing the accused on the point of charge and without considering the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 01/04/2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur for fresh consideration of the application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/accused and for hearing on the point of charge in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mandatory hearing before framing of charge
- Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C.
- discharge application
- framing of charge
- revisional jurisdiction
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 26
Criminal Revision Application No.354 of 2016
Mr. Tejas Hilage for the Applicant, Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the Respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against order rejecting discharge application
Remedy Sought
Revision petitioner/accused sought setting aside of order rejecting discharge and direction for fresh hearing
Filing Reason
Trial court framed charge without hearing accused and rejected discharge application as charge already framed
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur rejected discharge application on 01/04/2016
Issues
Whether the trial court can frame charge without hearing the accused on the point of charge?
Whether the trial court can reject a discharge application on the ground that charge has already been framed?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned Advocate for revision petitioner argued that trial court hurriedly framed charge without hearing and rejected discharge application, violating Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C.
Learned APP opposed revision, supporting the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
Compliance with Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory before framing of charge in a sessions case. The trial court must hear the accused on the point of charge and consider any discharge application before framing charge.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned order dated 01/04/2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/original accused by holding that the application is devoid of merit as the charge has already been framed.
The learned Advocate vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has given a complete gobye to the provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C.. No hearing on the point of framing of charge was conducted and straightway the charge came to be framed.
Procedural History
The revision petitioner was chargesheeted for offence under Section 302 IPC. He filed a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. On 01/04/2016, the trial court framed the charge and rejected the discharge application. The revision petitioner then filed Criminal Revision Application No.354 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 226, 227
- Indian Penal Code: 302
