- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jayaprakash v. State
Summary of Legal Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners are the accused in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1980 before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichur. They were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trichur, committed the accused for trial before the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichur. After the accused appeared, the case was posted for a preliminary hearing under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Following submissions by the accused and the prosecutor, the case was posted for orders on 18-11-1980. On that date the Court framed charges against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 448 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. No other formal order was passed that day. The accused filed the present revision petition challenging those proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the documents on record justified the framing of charges against the accused for the offences specified.
- Whether the order framing the charge complied with the requirements of Section 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically whether the court was required to record reasons when framing a charge.
- Whether an order framing a charge (absent a formal speaking order giving reasons) is open to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The documents produced in the case did not justify the framing of charges for the offences for which the accused were charged.
- The first information statement named only accused 1 and 2 as assailants, and the alleged motive related to political rivalry (membership of R.S.S. vs. Marxist Communist Party), which, they contended, did not support framing charges against all accused.
- The proceeding framing the charge did not conform with Section 228(1)(a) of the Code because no reasons were recorded when the charge was framed; therefore the order was unsustainable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| <strong>V.C Shukla v. State</strong>, <strong>1980 Supp <strong>SCC 92</strong></strong> : AIR. 1980 SC 962. | The case covers the position that an order framing a charge is an interlocutory proceeding and, accordingly, revisional jurisdiction does not lie under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for such an order. | The court relied on this decision to hold that even if the charge was framed without reasons the order is interlocutory and not open to revision, and therefore dismissed the revision petition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the petitioners' contention that Section 228(1)(a) requires a formal, reasoned order when framing a charge. It observed that Section 227 expressly requires reasons when an accused is discharged, while Section 228 contains no comparable provision requiring recorded reasons when a charge is framed. The court reasoned that this omission was deliberate: an order of discharge is final and may be challenged by the prosecution, so reasons must be recorded to enable appellate scrutiny; by contrast, framing a charge is interlocutory and the trial continues, providing opportunities to challenge any irregularity later in the proceedings.
The court further held that even if the charge had been framed without giving reasons, that would be an interlocutory irregularity. In view of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, revision does not lie against interlocutory orders. The court noted that a discharge order is final because it terminates the prosecution, whereas framing a charge does not terminate proceedings—the trial proceeds until acquittal or conviction. The court stated that this position is covered by the Supreme Court decision in V.C. Shukla v. State, and on that basis concluded that the revision petition could not be entertained.
Holding and Implications
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION DISMISSED.
Direct effect: The revision petition challenging the framing of charges is dismissed and the trial proceedings, as initiated by the framing of charges, are to continue. The court's decision rests on the interlocutory character of a charge-framing order and the inapplicability of revision under Section 397(2) for such orders. The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel precedent beyond applying the existing authority (V.C. Shukla v. State) to the facts of this case.
1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1980 of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichur, are the petitioners. They were charge sheeted by the prosecution for offences punishable under Ss. 143,147, 448, 323, 324 and 307 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trichur, committed the accused to stand their trial before the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial by the Assistant Session Judge, Trichur The accused appeared before that Court. After the appearance of the accused in Court the case was posted for preliminary hearing under S. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the accused and by the prosecutor the case was posted for orders on 18-11-1980. On 18-11-1980 the Court framed charges against all the accused for offences punishable under Ss. 143, 148, 448 and 307 read with S. 149 IPC. No other formal order was passed on that day. The revision petition is filed challenging the proceedings.
2. The main contention put forward on behalf of the revision petitioners is that the documents produced in the case do not justify framing of charges for the above said offences. In the first information statement filed in the case the names of accused 1 and 2 alone were mentioned as assailants. The motive alleged is that the accused are members of the R.S.S while the injured and his family are members of Marxist Communist Party, and as such, there is political rivalry between the parties.
3. It is further contended that the proceeding framing the charge is not in conformity with the provisions contained in S. 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the said order is unsustainable in law.
4. Under S. 227 of the Code it is incumbent on the Court to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution and if the Judge considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused the Court should discharge the accused and should also record its reasons for so doing. S. 228 of the Code states that if, after such consideration and hearing, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence he may frame a charge. The argument put forward is that even in cases where a charge is to be framed it is incumbent on the Court to give its reasons and there should be a formal order framing the charge. It is contended that since there is no speaking order giving reasons for the framing of the charge it is not possible to find out whether the learned Sessions Judge has considered the documents submitted before him and therefore this is a fit case where this Court should interfere and pass appropriate orders.
5. The contention advanced has no force. S. 228 does not in terms direct that the court should pass a formal order giving its reasons for the framing of the charge. That the legislature did not contemplate a formal order framing the charge is evident from the fact that while in S. 227 there is express mention that the order of discharge passed by the Court should be supported by reasons, there is absence of such a provision in S. 228(1). There is reason for holding that the omission in the latter case is not accidental or inadvertent, because under the scheme of the Code, an order of discharge being a final order is liable to be challenged by the prosecution and in case it is challenged, the reasons for the discharge should be made available for secrutiny by the superior court. In case a charge is framed, the trial proceeds and an opportunity to challenge any irregularity in the charge or its validity would be available to the party affected at the conclusion of the trial.
6. Even assuming that the Court has gone wrong in framing the charge without giving reasons thereto the order framing the charge is an interlocutory proceeding and as such no revision will lie in view of S. 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure The framing of the charge does not put an end to the proceedings; the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction. It is no doubt true, that if the Court had passed an order discharging the accused that would have been a final order. This is so because the order of discharge finally gives an end to the prosecution and therefore there is a termination of the entire proceedings; that is not so in the case of a proceeding framing the charge. Therefore, even assuming that the Court committed an irregularity in omitting to pass a formal order leading to the framing of a charge the said proceeding is not open to revision in view of S. 397(2) of the Code. The position is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in V.C Shukla v. State, 1980 Supp SCC 92 : AIR. 1980 SC 962.
7. The Criminal Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Dismissed.
Alert