Sec. 216 of Cr.P.C Alter of charges is the power of court can do at any time before pronouncing judgement when it is not cause any prejudice to the accused = 1. C.Selvakumar 2. C.Parvathy 3. C.Selvaraj 4. P.Jayaraj ... Petitioners -Vs.- 1. State represented by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station (Central) Coimbatore. (Cr.No.38 of 2007) = Reported in http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=40833

Sec. 216 of Cr.P.C. -  Alter of charges is the power of court can do at any time before pronouncing judgement when it is not cause any prejudice to the accused = 

reserved for judgment after recording of evidence and arguments were over.  At that time, the court issued a communication on 07.03.2012 to both parties stating that for altering charges, the case is suo-motu reopened.  Originally the charge was framed under Section 498 -A IPC stating that the accused persons demanded 30 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry.  The altered charge would show that they demanded 35 sovereigns of gold jewels =
Section 216 (1) of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-
"216. Court may alter charge.
(1)    Any court may alter or add to any charge at           any time before judgment is pronounced."
The very reading of Section shows that it is the discretion of the Court to alter or to add any charge before the judgment is pronounced.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that change in weight of the jewels is a part of charge and hence, it would amount to alteration of charge.  It is for the Court to exercise its discretion.  It is stated that witnesses have been recalled and reexamined and hence, the accused persons have been given adequate opportunities to meet the charges.  In such situation, it would not cause any prejudice to the accused.  Hence, there is no valid ground shown in this Revision to set aside the order of the court below dated 07.03.2012.  The order challenged before this Court is confirmed and this Revision is devoid of merits, which suffers dismissal.  

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:08.02.2013

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.421 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
1. C.Selvakumar
2. C.Parvathy
3. C.Selvaraj
4. P.Jayaraj ...  Petitioners

-Vs.-

1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station (Central)
Coimbatore. (Cr.No.38 of 2007)

2. T.Vellai Vinayagam ...  Respondents
(Second respondent is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 10.10.2012 made in M.P.No.2 of 2012)
Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 07.03.2012 made in D.No.75 in S.C.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore and to set aside the same.

  For Petitioners  :   Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran

  For Respondent-1: Mr.C.Emilias
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

  For Respondent-2:      Mrs.A.Malath Devapriyam
-------

ORDER
The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore.  The case has been reserved for judgment after recording of evidence and arguments were over.  At that time, the court issued a communication on 07.03.2012 to both parties stating that for altering charges, the case is suo-motu reopened.  Originally the charge was framed under Section 498 -A IPC stating that the accused persons demanded 30 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry.  The altered charge would show that they demanded 35 sovereigns of gold jewels.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the charge some improvements have been made during alteration, and by means of those, the witnesses have been recalled and cross-examined, which will prejudice the accused persons, and that the changing of weight of jewels would not amount to either altering the charge or addition of charge, and that the Court cannot suo-motu reopen the case for such an alteration to the prejudice of the accused and that erroneous order of the court below may be set aside.

3. Inter alia, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the reading of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. would show that it is the discretion of the Court to alter the charge and that altering the weight of jewels in the charge would not cause any prejudice to the accused and that no valid reason is shown to set aside the order of the Court below.

4. Section 216 (1) of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-
"216. Court may alter charge.
(1)    Any court may alter or add to any charge at           any time before judgment is pronounced."
The very reading of Section shows that it is the discretion of the Court to alter or to add any charge before the judgment is pronounced.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that change in weight of the jewels is a part of charge and hence, it would amount to alteration of charge.  It is for the Court to exercise its discretion.  It is stated that witnesses have been recalled and reexamined and hence, the accused persons have been given adequate opportunities to meet the charges.  In such situation, it would not cause any prejudice to the accused.  Hence, there is no valid ground shown in this Revision to set aside the order of the court below dated 07.03.2012.  The order challenged before this Court is confirmed and this Revision is devoid of merits, which suffers dismissal.

6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

08.02.2013
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mra
 
To

1. The Judge,
Mahila Court,
Coimbatore.
           
2. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station (Central)
Coimbatore. (Cr.No.38 of 2007)
 

































S. PALANIVELU,J.  

mra










CRIMINAL R.C.No.421 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012










 


08.02.2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.