Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order framing charge against him passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 6 July 2017 in Sessions Case No.440 of 2017. The main grievance was that the charge was framed without hearing the petitioner or the prosecution, in violation of Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner pointed to the Roznama of that date, which did not disclose any hearing of the learned APP or the defence counsel before the charge was marked as Exhibit-C. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the Bombay High Court: Rajukumar Girdharilal Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2053) and Ambadas Kashirao Kharad v. State of Maharashtra (2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1916), which held that compliance with Sections 226 and 227 is mandatory and not an empty formality. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the APP, found that the Roznama clearly showed no hearing took place before framing the charge. The court held that the Sessions Court must hear the prosecution under Section 226 and the accused under Section 227 before deciding to frame a charge. Since this was not done, the framing of charge was set aside. The court directed the Sessions Court to hear both sides afresh and then pass a fresh order on charge. The petition was allowed, rule made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Sections 226 and 227 CrPC - Mandatory Hearing - The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused without hearing the prosecution or the defence, as the Roznama did not record any hearing. The High Court held that compliance of Sections 226 and 227 is not an empty formality and must be followed in letter and spirit. The charge was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the framing of charge by the Additional Sessions Judge without hearing the accused or the prosecution, as required under Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order framing charge dated 6 July 2017 is set aside. The Sessions Court is directed to hear the prosecution under Section 226 and the accused under Section 227 CrPC and then pass a fresh order on charge. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Mandatory hearing before framing charge
- Sections 226 and 227 CrPC compliance
- Roznama must reflect hearing
- Charge quashed for non-compliance
