Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 467 (UTT)

Mahesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-07-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 02.02.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2024,, State Vs. Mahesh Chandra Tamta alias Agari, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar. District-Nainital (“the trial”). By it, an application for discharge moved by the revisionist has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 3. In the trial, the revisionist filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). One of the grounds was that the revisionist was not provided with all the copies, as required under Section 207 of the Code. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that at the stage of framing of charge, the revisionist was not provided with all the copies, as mandated under law. Therefore, the order is bad in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that, in fact, for seeking copies under Section 207 of the Code, the revisionist did file C482 No.694 of 2024, which has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.05.2024, directing the trial court to provide all the copies, as mandated under Section 207 of the Code. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist may be provided with all the copies under Section 207 of the Code, and, thereafter, the hearing on charge may be done and fresh order may be passed. 7. Framing of charge or discharge is not a mere formality. Section 227 of the Code reads as follows:- “227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 8. Section 207 of the Code provides for supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. 9. All the documents on which the prosecution relies are supplied to the accused so that he may prepare his defence well in advance. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, all the documents, as mandatory to be provided to the revisionist, were not provided to him. Despite that, hearing on charge was done and charges framed. 9. All the documents on which the prosecution relies are supplied to the accused so that he may prepare his defence well in advance. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, all the documents, as mandatory to be provided to the revisionist, were not provided to him. Despite that, hearing on charge was done and charges framed. This procedure is not in accordance with law. In C482 No.694 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already directed the trial court to supply the documents to the revisionist. Once the documents are supplied to the revisionist, the matter may be heard afresh on framing of charges. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the revisionist deserves to be allowed. 11. The revision is allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 02.02.2024, is set aside. 13. Once the revisionist is provided documents in compliance of the order dated 16.05.2024, passed in C482 No.694 of 2024, the parties shall be heard afresh on the question of framing of charge/discharge, and the court below shall proceed thereafter, in accordance with law. 14. Parties shall not be provided any adjournment till order is passed on framing of charge/discharge.