Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1647 (RAJ)

Satto @ Satya Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2003-12-11

HARBANS LAL

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.RC. is directed against and seeks quashing of the order dated 15.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 13/2003. 2. Learned counsel has contended that the charges ordered to be framed against the petitioners are different from the charges actually framed. The order states that the offences u/ss. 341, 323/149, 341/149, 325/149 and 307/149 I.PC. are primafacie found whereas the charges actually framed against the accused persons are for the offences u/ss. 341, 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. Besides this, joint charge for the offences u/ss. 341, 323/34 and 324/34 I.PC. has been framed which is in violation of the provisions of Section 218 Cr.P.C. His submission is that the order on the face of it demonstrates non-application of mind and non-compliance of the statutory provisions. 3. Learned PR also could not defend the impugned order. 4. I have perused the impugned order as well as the material placed before me and have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. 5. Section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enjoins upon the court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith after hearing the accused and the prosecution. But the impugned order does not indicate that the record and the documents have been considered by the learned court below. It is also evident from a perusal of the impugned order and the charges framed in pursuance thereto that the order contains that the charges have been framed for various offences with the application of Section 149 I. PC. whereas the actual charges have been framed with the application of Section 34 I.PC. Admittedly, there are only three accused persons in this case and there is no allegation of an unlawful assembly having been formed by the accused persons Still the order states that the charges for various offences with the application of Section 149 I.PC. are primafacie made out. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the concerned officer. 6. As indicated above, joint charge for the offences u/ss. 341, 323/34 and 324/34 I.PC. has been framed which is also against the provisions of Section 218 Cr.PC. are primafacie made out. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the concerned officer. 6. As indicated above, joint charge for the offences u/ss. 341, 323/34 and 324/34 I.PC. has been framed which is also against the provisions of Section 218 Cr.PC. which provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately. 7. In view of the fore-going discussion, the order and the charges framed in pursuance thereto by the learned court below cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 8. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur and the charges framed in pursuance thereto are hereby quashed and the case is remitted back to the learned court below to pass appropriate fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and in the light of the observations made here-in-above.Revision Petition allowed. *******