Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bharat Uttam Rajurkar, Mahadev Uttamrao Rajurkar, and Sachin Mahadevrao Rajurkar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) challenging the orders of the trial court and the revisional court rejecting their application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for alteration of the charge framed against them. The trial court, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.8, Amravati, had rejected the application on 21/03/2016, and the Sessions Judge, Amravati, dismissed the criminal revision (No.42/2016) on 22/11/2017. The petitioners raised three grounds: first, that the charge was framed without giving them an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 239 Cr.P.C.; second, that the offence of extortion under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was not made out; and third, that the charge made a hotchpotch of several distinct offences committed by different accused at different places and times, violating Sections 212, 218, 219, 220, and 223 Cr.P.C. The petitioners' counsel, Shri P.W. Mirza, argued that the charge was defective and illegal. The State, represented by Shri C.A. Lokhande, contended that even if there were errors, no prejudice would be caused. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found merit in the petitioners' submissions. The court held that the trial court had not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 239 Cr.P.C. to hear the accused before framing the charge. Additionally, the charge improperly clubbed distinct offences, violating the provisions against joinder of charges. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the trial court to hear the petitioners and pass a fresh order on the application for alteration of charge in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Charge Framing - Section 239 Cr.P.C. - Mandatory Hearing - The trial court failed to give an opportunity of hearing to the accused before framing the charge, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 239 Cr.P.C. - Held that such non-compliance vitiates the charge and warrants alteration (Paras 04, 06). B) Criminal Procedure - Joinder of Charges - Sections 212, 218, 219, 220, 223 Cr.P.C. - Distinct Offences - The charge clubbed several distinct offences committed by different accused persons at different places and times, violating the mandate against joinder of distinct offences - Held that such hotchpotch charge is illegal and must be altered (Paras 04, 06). C) Criminal Procedure - Alteration of Charge - Section 216 Cr.P.C. - Defective Charge - The petitioners' application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge was wrongly rejected by the trial court and the revisional court - Held that the charge being defective and illegal, the application ought to have been allowed (Paras 02, 06).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the charge framed against the petitioners is defective for non-compliance with Section 239 Cr.P.C. and for violating Sections 212, 218, 219, 220, 223 Cr.P.C. by clubbing distinct offences, and whether the courts below erred in rejecting the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders of the trial court and the revisional court, and directed the trial court to hear the petitioners and pass a fresh order on the application for alteration of charge in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 239 Cr.P.C. requires hearing before charge framing
- Sections 212
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 223 Cr.P.C. prohibit joinder of distinct offences by different accused at different times and places
- Section 216 Cr.P.C. allows alteration of charge at any time before judgment
