Bombay High Court
Parshuram S/O Traymbak Jaybhaye vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 19 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5945
925.revn.208.2024.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2024
Parshuram s/o Trayambak Jaybhaye,
Aged about 40 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Palaskhed, Post - Hirdav,
Taluka Lonar, Rahatni, Hirdav,
District Buldhana. ..... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Washim City,
District Washim.
2. Khushal s/o Ramchandra Jadhav,
Aged about 53 Years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Saikheda,
Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------
Mr. V. S. Sambre, Counsel for the applicant.
Mr. C. A. Lokhande, APP for the non-applicant No.1 /State.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 19.06.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final
disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant
and learned APP for the State.
3. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged
the order of framing of charge without hearing him and without
925.revn.208.2024.Judgment.odt
compliance of Section 226 and 228 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant who submitted
that the applicant challenges the order of framing of charge dated
23.07.2024 in Special ACB No. 3/2017 pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir, Washim for commission of
the offences under Sections 7 and 15 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.386/2016 lodged on 03.12.2016,
registered with the non-applicant No.1 by the complainant.
5. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the application are as under:
The informant Khushal Ramchandra Jadhav, who is doing the
agriculture work and owns a farm measuring 15 acres at Saikheda,
Washim at Gat No.108. Due to scarcity of water, the said well in his
field came to be acquired by the government, for which the
complainant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.22,000/-.
Therefore, the complainant approached to the accused who is
serving as clerk in Panchayat Samiti and demanded about his
compensation amount, at that time the present applicant alleged to
have demanded the bribe amount of Rs.1500/- to hand over the
cheque of Rs.22,000/- therefore, the complainant approached to the
ACB Office Washim and lodged the report. The ACB official verified
about demand and the applicant was arrested and thereafter after
925.revn.208.2024.Judgment.odt
completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the
present applicant. The Special Court has framed the charge on
23.07.2024. The only grievance of the present applicant is that
without hearing him, which is the requirement under Sections 226
and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court
has framed the charge and therefore, the framing of charge without
hearing the present applicant. In view of that the opportunity is to
be granted to the applicant to be heard on the point of the charge.
6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said contentions on
the ground that though applicant was present he has not made any
submission as to the hearing before framing of charge and
therefore, the revision being devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant who placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ram Prakash Chadha vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 651.
8. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides
that after the accused appears or is brought before the Court in
pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209, the
prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought
against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to
prove the guilt of the accused. Section 227 contemplates
925.revn.208.2024.Judgment.odt
consideration of the record of the case by the Judge and hearing of
the submissions on behalf of the accused and the prosecution and
passing of the order either framing charge or discharging the
accused. Thus, it is settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court
that if the Judge wants to frame a charge he may not pass a
detailed order giving reasons but he wants to discharge the accused
he has to give detailed reasons for discharging the accused.
Section 227 mandates consideration of record and hearing of the
prosecution as well as the accused before passing an order framing
of charge or discharging the accused. Section 228 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure contemplates consideration of record and
hearing of accused for the purpose of finding out there is a ground
for presuming that the accused has committed any offence. Thus
the opportunity of the hearing is to be granted to the accused
before framing of the charge.
9. I have gone through the roznama as well as the charge
framed by the learned Judge. Roznama as well as the charge
framed nowhere discloses that opportunity of hearing is granted to
the present applicant/accused.
10. In my view, on account of this, a fundamental defect
has been crept in, the accused has come forward to remove the
defect in the charge and therefore, the revision application deserves
to be allowed. Hence I pass the following order:-
925.revn.208.2024.Judgment.odt
ORDER
(i) The charge framed against the accused/applicant in
Special ACB Case No.3/2017 at Exh.12 by the learned
Special Judge and Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir dated 23.07.2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(ii) Learned Judge is directed to frame a charge against
the accused/applicant by complying the provisions of Section
227 of Cr.P.C.
11. With this, the revision is disposed of.
12. Rule made absolute in the above terms
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/06/2025 14:51:30
