altered the charge= trial Judge altered the charge from Section 25(1)(1-a) to Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act at the time of judgment. But, the altered charge has not been put to the petitioner/accused. = the charge can be altered at any stage of the case. However, the altered charge is required to be put to the accused. The appellate Court noticed of the omission committed by the trial Court with regard to putting of the altered charge to the petitioner/accused and thereby proceeded to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned in the revision case warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.35 of 2013

Date:22^nd January, 2013

Between:

Yerubandi Venkata Diwakar S/o.Jaggarayudu

....Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

And

State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

....Respondent/Respondent

***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.35 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated  24.07.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2010 on the file of  I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and remanded the sessions case to the trial Court to explain the newly altered charge under Section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act to the petitioner/accused and record his plea and dispose of the sessions case afresh after giving opportunity to the prosecution as well as to the petitioner/accused to recall or re-summon and examine any witnesses.

2.     The petitioner is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.332 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District.  He faced trial for the offences under Sections 25(1)(1-a) and 27 of the Arms Act.  The learned trial Judge altered the charge from Section 25(1)(1-a) to Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act at the time of judgment.  But, the altered charge has not been put to the petitioner/accused.  The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the petitioner/accused, found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment, dated 11.03.2010.  The petitioner/accused assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.  The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, having come to the conclusion that the altered charge has not been put to the petitioner/accused, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and remanded the matter back to the trial Court.  Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the alteration of the charge at the fag end of the trial is opposed to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

5.     I do not see any substance in his contention, since it is well settled that the charge can be altered at any stage of the case. However, the altered charge is required to be put to the accused.  The appellate Court noticed of the omission committed by the trial Court with regard to putting of the altered charge to the petitioner/accused and thereby proceeded to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and remanded the matter back to the trial Court.  I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned in the revision case warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 

6.     Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.  The trial Court is directed to dispose of the Sessions Case No.332 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:22^nd January, 2013.

cs   

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.35 of 2013

Date:22^nd January, 2013