Dismissed

Nirmal Ramesh Oswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Nov 2019WP/5201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petitions challenging orders of the Sessions Judge regarding alteration of charges under IPC 328 and rejection of an application to refer the matter to an Adjudicating Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, upholding the rejection based on Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petitions were disposed of without interim orders; parties to act upon the authenticated copy.

Nirmal Ramesh Oswal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

27-wp-5201-2019.odt

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5201 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1116 OF 2019

¶5

Nirmal Ramesh Oswal ] Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shashank Mangle, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. Veera Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent -State.

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶9

DATE : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

Perused the papers. In Writ Petition No.5201 of 2019, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 5^th July, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri below Exhibit 37 in Session Case No.13 of 2016 (application filed by the petitioner) seeking alteration of charge in respect of section 328 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

27-wp-5201-2019.odt

¶15

In Writ Petition No.1116 of 2019, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 18^th January, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri below Exhibit 27 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2016 (application preferred by the petitioner) by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the petitioner’s application for referring the matter to the Adjudicating Officer, as contemplated under section 68 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the parties have tendered two judgments of the Apex Court;

¶17

[1] Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 1197

¶18

[2] R. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh, (2017) 3 Supreme

¶19

Court Cases 347 .

¶20

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

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

27-wp-5201-2019.odt

¶23

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.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the Petitions are

¶25

disposed of.

¶26

All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of

¶27

this order.

¶28

[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

¶29

3 of 3

Nirmal Ramesh Oswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Ramesh Oswal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Payal Doshi (Mrs. Payal Jinesh Shah) Vs the State of Maharashtra Ane Anr.

Deepinder Singh Bedi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nusli Neville Wadia Vs Phiroze J. Dastur and Ors.

Nirmal Ramesh Oswal Vs the State of Maharahstra

Sudhir D. Kalamkar Vs Pradeep M. Kadam and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pundalik Gorakh Marathe