Dismissed

Jagannath Shrihari Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Mar 2015WP/649/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged the refusal of the trial Magistrate to alter the charge under section 326 IPC after evidence concluded. The Court held that alteration of charge at this stage is improper as arguments are imminent, allowing the petitioner to advance arguments before the Magistrate instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner required to advance arguments before the Magistrate regarding evidence insufficiency.

Jagannath Shrihari Kadam Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

9_wp_649_2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.649 OF 2015

¶4

Jagannath Shrihari Kadam ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rupesh A. Zade for the Petitioner. Mr. V.B.K. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶8

CORAM:-M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 18^th MARCH, 2015.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned advocate for the Petitioner and learned APP for the Respondent -State.

¶11

Admit. By consent of the parties taken up forthwith for final hearing.

¶12

Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati. The Petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC. Evidence of the witnesses

¶13

megha Page No.1 of 3

¶14

9_wp_649_2015.doc

¶15

has been recorded. After completion of evidence, the Petitioner had made an application for alteration of charge. It was his contention that there was no material in the evidence to establish a charge under section 326 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate turned down the prayer. It was observed by the learned Magistrate that the arguments can be advanced at the time of final arguments and Court might consider the same.

¶16

In my opinion the view expressed by the learned Magistrate is correct. Since the evidence is concluded and the case is kept for recording of evidence under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, it is not just and proper to amend the charge at this stage though the Code empowers the trial Magistrate to amend and alter charge at any stage. The discretion is to be exercised keeping in mind stage of the case. In the present case the stage of argument is about to reach within a few days. Learned advocate for the Petitioner will be at liberty to advance arguments before the Magistrate that the evidence does not prove the offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC. It need not be stated here that if the evidence is not sufficient to establish the grievous hurt as defined under section 320 of the IPC the learned Magistrate will definitely consider the prayer for diluting

¶17

megha Page No.2 of 3

¶18

9_wp_649_2015.doc

¶19

the major charge to minor charge if at all any minor charge is proved

¶20

at the conclusion of the trial.

¶21

I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, petition is

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

(JUDGE)

¶24

megha Page No.3 of 3

Jagannath Shrihari Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Shrihari Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Nemichand Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh G. Uchil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jawahar Nadar Vs Priyesh Bheda and Anr.

Mrs. Carmel Peter Prabhu . Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. .

Dr. Jayesh Arjun Katira Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sakpal Govind Kalidas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.