1990 (8) TMI 397 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to amend charges u/s 216 Cr. P.C.
2. Applicability of s. 319 Cr. P.C. to persons previously discharged.
3. Legal implications of discharge orders and subsequent cognizance of offences.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to amend charges u/s 216 Cr. P.C.:
The appellants argued that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by amending charges beyond what was prayed for in the application u/s 216 Cr. P.C. The High Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of offences based on evidence recorded, even if the accused were previously discharged. The Supreme Court agreed that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to amend charges against appellants Sohan Lal, Padam Chand, and Vishnu, who were already accused under s. 427 I.P.C. However, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to frame charges against Vijya Bai and Jiya Bai, who were wholly discharged.

2. Applicability of s. 319 Cr. P.C. to persons previously discharged:
The appellants contended that s. 319 Cr. P.C. applies only to persons not already accused. The High Court held that the Magistrate could take cognizance under s. 319 Cr. P.C. based on evidence recorded. The Supreme Court clarified that s. 319 Cr. P.C. empowers the court to proceed against persons not being the accused, appearing to be guilty of an offence. Since appellants 1, 2, and 3 were already accused, s. 319 Cr. P.C. did not apply to them. As for appellants 4 and 5, they were also considered "accused" within the meaning of the Code, and thus s. 319 Cr. P.C. did not cover them either.

3. Legal implications of discharge orders and subsequent cognizance of offences:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences against persons previously discharged without further inquiry. The Court noted that s. 398 Cr. P.C. allows for further inquiry into cases where persons have been discharged, provided they have an opportunity to show cause. The necessity of further inquiry under s. 398 could not be circumvented by s. 319 Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for caution in resorting to s. 319 Cr. P.C. and held that once a person is discharged, they are out of the reach of s. 319 Cr. P.C. The Court concluded that the Magistrate could not proceed against appellants 4 and 5 under s. 216 or s. 319 Cr. P.C. without further inquiry.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the impugned orders of the Magistrate and the High Court concerning appellants Vijya Bai and Jiya Bai were set aside. The application u/s 216 Cr. P.C. was maintainable only for appellants Sohan Lal, Padam Chand, and Vishnu. The appeals were allowed to that extent.