Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 17 April, 2014
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 759 of 2014
Revisionist :- Rahul
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Ajay Kr. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This revision has been preferred against the orders dated 24.01.2014 and 01.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No.114 of 2014 (State Vs. Kushal Pal and others) in Case Crime No.614 of 2013 u/s 392 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Nauchandi, District-Meerut whereby the charge u/s 392 I.P.C. has been framed against the accused-revisionist and the subsequent application seeking discharge was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Ordinarily this Court would have issued notice to private opposite party No.2 who is the first informant and would have decided the matter after hearing him as he has been impleaded in the array of parties. But in that event the proceedings of the lower court had to be stayed. Such a course would have been definitely detrimental to the interest of the prosecution because in the wake of the staggering load of pending cases there was scarcely any possibility for this revision to be heard in a measurable distance of time. Apart from this, this is a State case where the prime prosecutor is the State itself who was represented by its counsel in the court. As the order impugned was also reflecting a palpable illegality this Court deemed it proper to proceed and decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the learned A.G.A.
The submission of the counsel is that in fact on 24.01.2014 the charge sheet was submitted against the accused and it was on that very date that the cognizance was taken against the accused and the case was registered in the Court. It has also been submitted that as the accused was in jail, he was initially produced before the Court and then was sent back to judicial custody and the next date was fixed as 01.2.2014. The submission is that it was on the same date that the Court has proceeded to frame the charge vide its order date 24.01.2014 against the accused. It has been argued that first of all it was a physical impossibility to have got prepared the copies of the statements of various witnesses and to supply them to the accused in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. But according to the counsel the accused was forced to make an endorsement on the file that due procedure has been followed and the copies of the statements have been supplied to him on the same date. It has also been argued that even if it is presumed that with an extraordinary dispatch the Court acted with extreme alacrity and ensured the preparation of the copies of the statements as well as its supply to the accused also on the same date, it is very obvious in such circumstances that the accused would hardly have an opportunity to either engage a counsel or if he had a counsel already to have an opportunity to prepare the case and place his arguments before the Court to defend himself. According to the counsel it is the statutory right of the accused to be heard at the stage of framing of the charge and this statutory provision has been brought to a naught in the aforesaid circumstances as this is very obvious that the opportunity which the accused or this counsel could have had to argue on the point of discharge cannot be termed to be a reasonable opportunity at all. It has also been submitted that because of this reason the impugned order does not reflect that either the public prosecutor or the accused was heard on the point of charge. It has further been submitted that on the next date i.e. 01.02.2014 when the application seeking discharge was moved before the court, the court again passed the order that as the charge had already been framed, there is no question to entertain the discharge application. The contention is that the circumstances are demonstrably clear to indicate that the statutory right of the accused of being heard has been frustrated completely and therefore both the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law.
Learned A.G.A. in rebuttal has submitted that though the record does not indicate as to how the copies of the statements of the witnesses were prepared on the same day but may be that some extraordinary effort on the part of the court might have brought this result.
I am not satisfied either with the submission made on behalf of State nor the way the court below has proceeded in the matter. Even if it is presumed that the copies of the statements or the material which the prosecution relied upon were supplied to the accused atleast a date ought to have been fixed giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused to study the material and make its submission if he so desired on the point of framing of the charge. The very fact that the charge sheet itself was submitted on 24.01.2014 it does not sound very palatable as to how on the same day the copies of the statements were supplied and as to how on the same day the charge was framed. If such a course has taken place then definitely there is an infraction of the principles of natural justice and it can very safely be said that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to address the court on the point of charge and the opportunity which was provided to him was definitely inadequate.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it proper to quash both the impugned orders and remand the matter back with the direction that the court below shall give a reasonable opportunity to the accused and after both the sides have been heard shall then proceed to pass order in accordance with law on the point of charge.
With the aforesaid observations the present revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2014
M. Kumar
