Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Revision No.4139 of 2012 ....Date of decision:12.2.2014 Gulshan ...Petitioner v.
State of Punjab ...Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Anmol Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State....Inderjit Singh, J.
Gulshan-petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.against the State of Punjab challenging the impugned orders dated 17.7.2012 and 20.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which charges for the offences under Section 304 and 427 IPC have been framed against the petitioner.
It is mainly stated in the petition that the charges for the offences under Sections 304 and 427 IPC framed against the petitioner are absolutely against the law.
The charge could be only under Section 304-A IPC along with the other relevant provisions as the case set-up was that on 29.11.2011, the petitioner while driving a canter had hit Jagwinder Singh, Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.18 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Revision No.4139 of 2012 [2].who fell down and died on account of the accident.
The petitioner filed application on 20.11.2012 under Section 216 Cr.P.C.for altering the charge from Section 304 to 304-A IPC.
It is also stated that from the statement of one Yadwinder Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.as well as from the investigation report, the ingredients of Section 304 IPC are not made out at all.
It is also stated in the petition that the learned trial Court dismissed the application by wrongly stating that since revision has not been filed against the order of framing of the charge, therefore, no alteration can be made in the charge in the application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C.I have gone through the record and have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
From the record, I find that the ld.
Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.11.2012 dismissed the application only on the ground that as no revision has been filed against the framing of charge and the application has been filed to linger on the matter.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered and disposed of the application on merit.
As per Section 216 Cr.P.C., any Court may alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
Therefore, in no way, this application can be held as not maintainable because the charge can be amended at any stage of the trial even before the pronouncement of the judgment.
The mere fact that the revision has not been filed against the framing of charge is no ground to dismiss the application.
Therefore, the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.18 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Revision No.4139 of 2012 [3].order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing the application is not as per law.
The revision petition is allowed to that extent and the trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 216 Cr.P.C.after giving opportunity to the parties on merit.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
February 12, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.18 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh