CRR/1010/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 245 Cal

19.01.2021 tkm/ct 42 sl no. 46 C.R.R. No. 1010 of 2020

In Re : Sk. Ramjan Ali & Ors. .....petitioners

Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. A K Samanta Mr. K Roy Ms. A Chel Mr. S Das Mr. A Banerjee ...... for the petitioner

Mr. S Bapuli Mr. Arijit Ganguly ...... for the State

Let supplementary affidavit furnished by the petitioners be

kept on record.

The impugned order dated 26.2.2020 passed by the learned

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court,

Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in connection with S.T case no. 7(1)15

proposing alteration of the charge is the subject of challenge in this

revisional application.

Mr. Mondal, learned counsel representing the petitioners

submits that even after the date being fixed for delivery of

judgment, learned court below had taken a sudden stand proposing

alteration of charge, for the absence of any necessary charge

against the accused persons (more than one), who are facing trial

in a case under section 302 IPC.

It is thus contended by Mr. Mondal that sudden change of

direction by the learned court below with regard to making

alteration of charge has caused great prejudice to the petitioner, as

the case was admittedly fixed for delivery of judgment.

It is not doubted by any of the parties to this case that as

many as 10 accused persons were roped in this case so as to face a

trial under section 302 IPC.

Mr. Bapuli representing the State submits supporting the

order of the learned court below that when the petitioners were

offered to exercise their discretion/option either to make adoption

of the evidence already recorded, or adduce fresh evidence, there

lies no illegality so as to interfere with under the behest of section

482 Cr.P.C.

The attention of the court is drawn to the supplementary

affidavit furnished by the petitioners.

In course of hearing, it could be learnt that 27.1.2021 is date

fixed by the trial court for framing of charge.

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it

appears that the petitioners have grossly contended to have

suffered prejudice for having made alteration of the charge even at

the stage of delivery of the judgment. There cannot be any dispute

that the charge framed can be altered at any stage finding sufficient

materials and after giving an opportunity of hearing to face the

proposed alteration of charge. In this case, while proposing for

making alteration of the charge, the learned court below proceeded

to offer an opportunity to the petitioners thereby providing option to

be exercised by the petitioners either to adopt the evidence or

adduce a fresh evidence, subject to their choice, the court is not

agreeable to the contention raised by Mr. Mondal. The date so fixed

by the court below for framing of charge must be construed that it

is fixed in consonance with an order made earlier proposing for

making alteration of the charge. When there has been scope

provided to the petitioners requiring either to adopt the evidence or

to adduce fresh evidence, which is of course subject to the cross-

examination, there cannot be any prejudice to be suffered in any

manner whatsoever. It is thus for the petitioners to exercise their

option in the light of the observation passed in the impugned order.

If that option is appropriately exercised by the petitioners, there

shall be no prejudice caused to the petitioners, subject to facing

cross-examination of the new evidence if any produced during trial.

The impugned order would thus go unaltered.

The revisional application stands dismissed.

The petitioners are given liberty to make exercise of the

option already extended by the learned court below to the

petitioners.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon usual undertaking.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)