The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed two criminal writ petitions challenging the Sessions Judge's rejection of applications regarding alteration of charges under CrPC and referral to an Adjudicating Officer under the FSS Act.
The writ petitions were disposed of. The petitioner is allowed to file a discharge application on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
27-wp-5201-2019.odt
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5201 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1116 OF 2019
Nirmal Ramesh Oswal ] Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent
Mr. Shashank Mangle, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Veera Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent -State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2019.
P.C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
1 of 3
27-wp-5201-2019.odt
[2] R. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh, (2017) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 347 .
A perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R. Kartikalakshmi (supra) shows that in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has clearly held that the power under section 216 is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge, at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. The said judgment holds that no party, neither de facto complainant nor accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to
2 of 3
27-wp-5201-2019.odt
seek addition or alteration of the charge as the same is not provided under section 216 Cr. P.C. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner, for altering the charge in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. It is pertinent to note that an application filed by the prosecution for alteration of charges i.e to drop section 328 of the I.P.C was earlier rejected by the learned trial Judge. Needless to state, it is always open for the Trial Court to alter the charge, if the facts so warrant, in light of the aforesaid judgment in R. Kartikalakshmi (supra). At this stage, the learned Counsel seeks to file a discharge application on the ground that section 328 of the I.P.C would not apply in the facts of the case. If such an application is filed, the learned Sessions Judge to decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, un-inflenced by the orders passed below Exhibit 7, Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 37.
disposed of.
this order.
[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to reject an application for alteration of charge under section 216 CrPC after the apex court judgment in R. Kartikalakshmi.
Whether the petitioner's application to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Officer under section 68 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 could be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.Referred¶16
AIR 2016 SC 1197 · Who else cites this
R. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri GaneshFollowed¶20
(2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 347
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nirmal Ramesh Oswal
The State of Maharashtra
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
