Bombay High Court
Pundlik Ramdas Chaudhari And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:38422
3-revn-237-2019 with connected.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2019
Ramesh Mathuraji Lohar ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.235 OF 2019
Pundalik Ramdas Chaudhari & Anr. ... Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Madhusudan D. Pareek for the applicants.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the State -
respondent.
Mr. Rajkumar B. Munde, PSI is present.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
P.C.:
1. The applicants (original accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 are
challenging order passed by the Sessions Court in exercise of
power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
rejecting discharge application filed by the applicants.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision applications is
that accused No.4 - Hariram Laddha is the owner of M/s Ashish
Enterprises authorized dealer in Explosive, safety fuse &
3-revn-237-2019 with connected.doc
Ammonium Nitrate. That accused Nos.1 and 2 were working with
M/s. Ashish Enterprises as driver and cleaner respectively on the
vehicle bearing No.MH15/BJ/4029, Mahindra Bolero Pick Up
(hereinafter referred as 'said vehicle'). That accused No.5 is the
owner of Bharat Stone Crusher and accused Nos.3 and 6 were
employed at Bharat Stone Crusher as supervisor and labour
respectively at the relevant time.
3. It is alleged that accused No.4 inspite of having knowledge
about accused No.5 not having requisite license to use and possess
the explosive, prepared Bilti (Waybill) in the name of Bharat Stone
Crusher & Others. It is further alleged that accused No.4 illegally
handed over explosives worth Rs.88,550/- viz., Electric detonator,
Ordinary Detonator, safety Fuse, Gelatin & Ammonium Nitrate in
said vehicle to accused Nos.1 and 2 and transported the same at
Bharat Stone Crusher. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 6 hatched
a conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy accused No.6 on
the instructions of accused Nos.3 and 5 illegally unloaded from the
said vehicle explosive worth Rs.33,400/- vize., Ammonium Nitrate,
Safety Fuse, Gelatin, Electric detonator and in absence of any
license stored the same in an ordinary room meant for cooking in
an irresponsible manner knowing fully well that it can endanger
their life as well as life of others.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicant inviting my attention
to the reasons assigned by the Sessions Judge in paragraph 14
submitted that no reasons indicating application of mind is evident
from paragraph 14 of the order. He submits that there are no
indicators in the order which shows that the case pleaded by the
3-revn-237-2019 with connected.doc
applicants regarding absence of prima facie case, which entitles
the applicant for discharge has been considered by the Sessions
Judge. The reasons assigned appears to be template which could
the use in all discharge applications irrespective of nature of
allegations made against the accused persons. In absence of any
reasons satisfying parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in
the judgments in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , 1977 SCC (Cri)
533, and further elaborated in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4 the impugned order deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned APP opposed the submission contending
that the reasons supplied in paragraph 14 of the order are
sufficient to indicate application of mind. She submits that the
material on record has been considered by the Trial Court. The
reasons assigned may not be as detailed as required. However,
based on such reasons, it cannot be said as the Sessions Judge,
failed to apply his mind to the application for discharge. She
therefore submitted that though on merits there is material on
record to indicate that the prosecution has raised prima facie case
against the accused persons which requires full-fledge trial.
6. On careful reading of the impugned order, it becomes
evident that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind
to the material placed before him. The only reasoning recorded in
the order reads as follows:
"Considering facts and circumstances of the present case and
considering the fact that after investigation, investigating
3-revn-237-2019 with connected.doc
officer has filed charge-sheet, FIR is lodged in the year 2008
since then matter is pending for disposal on merit, whatever
story brought by the prosecution is required to be proved on
merit. There is an opportunity to the accused to rebut the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, opportunity to
both the parties is required to be given to prove their own
case. Hence, I come to the conclusion that at this juncture
accused is not entitled for discharge and hence, I proceed to
pass the following order."
7. This reasoning is mechanical and in the nature of a general
template. It does not show consideration of the facts of the case,
nor does it reflect satisfaction as to the existence of a prima facie
case against the accused persons.
8. The law on the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been
explained by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh,
1977 SCC (Cri) 533, and later elaborated in Union of India v.
Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4 . The Court clarified
that the object of Section 227 is to save the accused from
unnecessary harassment by facing a full-fledged trial in cases
where no prima facie case exists. At the same time, the Court has
cautioned that the stage of Section 227 is not for meticulous
examination of evidence or weighing the pros and cons of the
prosecution case. What is required is a judicial assessment of
whether the material placed on record discloses grave suspicion
that the accused has committed an offence, which, if unrebutted,
would justify framing of charge.
3-revn-237-2019 with connected.doc
9. Therefore, even though the Court is not expected to write a
detailed judgment while deciding an application under Section
227 of the Code, the order must at least show that the Judge has
applied his mind to the record. It must indicate that the Court has
considered whether the prosecution material, if taken at its face
value, makes out a prima facie case requiring the accused to face
trial. Recording such minimum reasons is necessary because it
enables a higher Court to verify whether the discretion under
Section 227 has been exercised fairly and in accordance with law.
10. In the present case, the impugned order does not meet this
test. The learned Sessions Judge has simply observed that since a
charge-sheet is filed and the case is pending for long, the matter
should proceed to trial. Such a line of reasoning is inadequate.
Filing of a charge-sheet by itself cannot be a ground to refuse
discharge. The Court is required to examine whether the facts
disclosed in the charge-sheet and other documents create grave
suspicion against the accused or not.
11. By failing to consider the material produced by the
prosecution and by not recording even a prima facie satisfaction,
the Sessions Judge has overlooked the settled legal position laid
down by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar
Samal. This omission amounts to non-application of mind. Such an
approach defeats the very object of Section 227, which is to protect
individuals from unnecessary trials when the basic ingredients of
an offence are not made out.
3-revn-237-2019 with connected.doc
12. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 2 March
2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in
(Old Case No.259 of 2017) New Case No.286 of 2013, cannot be
sustained in law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.
13. The discharge applications filed by accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4
stand restored to the file of the Sessions Court.
14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall hear both
parties afresh and decide the discharge applications by recording
reasons in accordance with law.
15. The parties shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge
on the date fixed by him.
16. The learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the discharge
applications within three months from the date of appearance of
the parties. The decision shall be taken uninfluenced by any
observations made in this order, as those are confined only to the
legality of the impugned order and not to the merits of the case.
17. The Revision Applications are disposed of in above terms.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
