HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
3. 23.10.2021 LK,J
Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2021
Admit.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice
on behalf of respondent No.1 -State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent No.2 through registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service.
_______ LK, J I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 The present revision is filed assailing the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.725 of 2019 in S.C.No.55 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereby petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge petitioner/A19 from the case was dismissed.
These petitions are filed seeking stay of all further proceedings in S.C.No.55 of 2018 and suspenseion of order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.725 of 2019.
The Court below has dismissed the said petition observing that the material on record attracts other offences i.e. offence under Section 201 of IPC against the petitioner apart from Section 212 of IPC and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Aleem vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 has no application to the facts of the case.
Heard Sri D.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- state.
Learned Senior Counsel by placing reliance on the said judgment submits that it squarely applies to the 1 1994 (2) ALT (Criminal) 408 facts of the case. He has drawn attention of the Court to the charges and submits that even as per the charge sheet and case of the prosecution, the petitioner is laible for punishment under Section 212 of IPC for harboring A1 to A4, A6 to A15 and A18. It is submitted that it is not the case of prosecution that petitioner has committed any other offence apart from offence under Section 212 of IPC and the Court below grossly erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that once basing on the material, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that offence under Section 201 of IPC is attracted, charge can be framed under the said Section and on that ground, petitioner cannot seek discharge.
This Court in Aleem's case (referred supra) has observed that:
In the present case, the petitioner, who is charged for offences u/Ss. 212 and 411, IPC, has to be necessarily tried along with A.1 and A.4, the other accused, for the offence u/S. 411, IPC as it forms part of the same transaction. Sub-section (e) of Section 223, Cr.PC also mandates that, in such a situation a joint trial must be held. If the charge against the petitioner/A5 is under Section 212, IPC simpliciter, without any other charges, then undoubtedly the petitioner cannot be tried for the offences u/S. 212, IPC along with the other accused. The reason for doing so is, that A.1 to A.4 are not yet found to be 'offenders' as required under Section 212, IPC. That is not the position in this case. The petitioner/A5 is charged with another offence viz., u/S. 411, IPC also, in addition to the offence u/S. 212, IPC. In these circumstances, the petitioner/A5 should not be allowed to undergo trial for the offence u/S. 411, IPC, along with other, viz., A.1 to A.4, and thereafter face the trial u/S. 212, IPC. This is not the intendment of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the decisions in Chacko v. State (1 supra) and Ram Raj Chaudhary v. Emperor (2 supra) are distinguishable and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case as in those cases the accused therein were charged only with the offence u/S. 212, IPC."
In view of the law laid down by this Court, there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.725 of 2019 in S.C.No.55 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, until further orders.
_______ LK, J ikn