1993 (1) TMI 295 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Court of Session can discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after framing a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in relation to orders framing charges.
3. The scope and limitations of Section 216 Cr.P.C. concerning alteration or addition of charges.
4. The applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for discharging an accused at any stage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Court of Session can discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after framing a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.:

The primary issue revolves around the question of whether a Court of Session can discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after having framed a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. The judgment clarifies that once a charge has been framed under Section 228, the trial must proceed according to the prescribed procedure, and the Court cannot revert to Section 227 to discharge the accused. The Court emphasized that the procedural sequence outlined in Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code must be followed strictly, and any deviation by inventing new procedures is not permissible. The Court stated, "Once charge has been framed under Section 228 the trial has to proceed according to the procedure provided in the sections following the Section 228 Cr.P.C, and the process cannot be put to back-gear for discharging the accused thereafter under Section 227 Cr.P.C."

2. Interpretation and application of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in relation to orders framing charges:

The judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the alteration or review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court noted that while Section 362 refers specifically to judgments or final orders, this does not imply that other orders, such as those framing charges, can be reviewed at any time. The Court stated, "The question whether the court which has already framed a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. can thereafter reconsider the charge and discharge the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has to be examined not in the light of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C."

3. The scope and limitations of Section 216 Cr.P.C. concerning alteration or addition of charges:

The judgment also examined Section 216 Cr.P.C., which allows a court to alter or add to any charge before the judgment is pronounced. The Court clarified that this section does not imply the power to discharge an accused or terminate the trial. Instead, it pertains to modifications or additions to charges. The Court stated, "A plain reading of the said section would show that the alteration or addition referred to therein contemplates modification, of or addition to charge but not discharging an accused in respect of a charge already framed so as to bring the trial itself to an end in respect of such accused."

4. The applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for discharging an accused at any stage:

The judgment referenced the decision of the Bombay High Court, which suggested that an accused could ask for discharge at any stage. However, the Court distinguished this by noting that such powers are specific to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which provides wide powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. The Court stated, "There is no doubt that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. gives wide power to the High Court to pass such order at any stage as may be considered necessary for securing the ends of justice or for preventing the abuse of process of the court."

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in discharging the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after framing a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. The impugned order was set aside, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the procedural sequence prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code and clarified the limitations on the powers of the Court of Session concerning discharge after framing charges.