In criminal revision, the High Court held that a discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable after charges are framed under Section 228. The court dismissed the revision, rejecting the contention that a statutory bar exists to raise vicarious liability merits at discharge stage.
Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
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.
*T HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
+CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1354 OF 2010
% Dated : 04.08.2009 # Koneru Suresh Babu ..... Petitioner AND $ The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., III Town P.S., Eluru, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ..... Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner : Smt. V. Padmaja Reddy ^Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred : 1987 Criminal Law Journal 584 2010(2) ALT (Crl.) 81 (A.P.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1354 OF 2010
Between:
Koneru Suresh Babu
… PETITIONER And
The State of A.P.
… RESPONDENT
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1354 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the second accused against order, dated 30.06.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Family Court, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2010 in
S.C.No.162 of 2010 by which the lower court dismissed the petition filed by A2 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. refusing to discharge him.
2. A2 is accused of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C. After committal of the case and after framing of charges, the lower court issued schedule for trial of the case. At this stage, A2 filed the present petition in the lower court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging him and to reconsider the charge. The lower court negatived request of A2 on the ground that discharge petition is not maintainable after framing of charges.
3. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Baburao Hari Pawar vs. State of Maharashtr a[1] of the Bombay High Court and contended that the accused is entitled to ask for discharge from the prosecution at any stage and there is no time limit for filing such an application. This Bombay High Court decision is contrary to scheme of trial before a court of session prescribed in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. As per Section 226 Cr.P.C., after the accused appears or is brought to the Sessions Court, the Prosecutor shall open the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove guilt of the accused. Thereafter, Section 227 Cr.P.C. comes into operation. As per the said provision, upon consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted with it and after hearing submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Sessions Judge, if considers that there is no sufficient case for proceeding against the accused, shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. If after such consideration and hearing as contained in Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by
the Sessions Court, shall frame charge in writing against the accused and it shall be read over and explained to the accused who will be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. The said provision is contained in Section 228 Cr.P.C. Subsequent procedure after Section 228 Cr.P.C. is relating to conviction, prosecution evidence, acquittal, examination of the accused during the course of further trial. When once charges are framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and they were read over and explained to the accused and when the Sessions Judge records plea of the accused regarding his guilt, thereafter the clock cannot be set back. The question of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. arises only before framing of charge by the Sessions Court and not after framing of charge. After framing of charge, it is the duty of the Sessions Court to proceed with the trial and find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty and consequently pass order of conviction or order of acquittal accordingly. After framing of charge, discharge of the accused from the case does not arise at all. Having regard to the above scheme provided in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C., this court is of the opinion that the above Bombay decision is not in accordance with the scheme of trial provided under Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioner’s counsel placing reliance on Ravi Prakash vs. J.C.Diwakar Redd y[2] , contended that criminal law does not recognize vicarious liability on the part of the employer. It is a matter touching merits of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to urge the point based on Ravi Prakash (2 supra) before the trial court at the time of hearing of arguments under Section 314 Cr.P.C. after completion of prosecution evidence and defence evidence. Either this court or the Sessions Court cannot apply the above decision for the purpose of discharging an accused after charge was framed against him.
5. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
6. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 04, 2010 KL LR copy to be marked. (B/o) KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1354 OF 2010
August 04, 2010
KL
[1] 1987 Criminal Law Journal 584
[2] 2010(2) ALT (Crl.) 81 (A.P.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused is entitled to seek discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after charges have been framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Whether the decision in Baburao Hari Pawar supports the right to seek discharge at any stage of trial
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baburao Hari Pawar vs. State of MaharashtraDoubted¶26
1987 Criminal Law Journal 584
Ravi Prakash vs. J.C. Diwakar ReddyDistinguished¶27
2010(2) ALT (Crl.) 81 (A.P.)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Koneru Suresh Babu
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
