Friday, September 13, 2013

court CAN exercise discretion and alter charge. as already blogged POLICE canNOT alter charge; also accused to be given sufficient opportunity to meet charge ..example cross examine witness etc


court CAN exercise discretion and alter charge. as already blogged POLICE canNOT alter charge; also accused to be given sufficient opportunity to meet charge ..example cross examine witness etc 


Notes
*******************
  • Husband & co accused of 498-A
  • Original charge says demand of 30 sovereigns of gold
  • Court re opens charge, changes charge to 35 sovereigns and witnesses re examined in the process
  • Also other improvements to charges 
  • Husband & co appeal alternations 
  • Madras HC says cocurt at it's discretion can re open charge
  • refers to CrPC !!
  • Also in this case the accused have been given opportunity to meet charge ...re examine witness etc


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS WEB SITE 
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date:08.02.2013

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.421 of 2012
and
 M.P.No.1 of 2012 
1. C.Selvakumar
2. C.Parvathy
3. C.Selvaraj 
4. P.Jayaraj ... Petitioners
 
 -Vs.-

1. State represented by
 The Inspector of Police
 All Women Police Station (Central)
 Coimbatore. (Cr.No.38 of 2007)

2. T.Vellai Vinayagam ... Respondents 

(Second respondent is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 10.10.2012 made in M.P.No.2 of 2012)

 Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 07.03.2012 made in D.No.75 in S.C.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore and to set aside the same.
 
 For Petitioners : Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran
 For Respondent-1: Mr.C.Emilias Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
 For Respondent-2: Mrs.A.Malath Devapriyam
****************************

ORDER

The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore. The case has been reserved for judgment after recording of evidence and arguments were over. At that time, the court issued a communication on 07.03.2012 to both parties stating that for altering charges, the case is suo-motu reopened. Originally the charge was framed under Section 498 -A IPC stating that the accused persons demanded 30 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry. The altered charge would show that they demanded 35 sovereigns of gold jewels. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the charge some improvements have been made during alteration, and by means of those, the witnesses have been recalled and cross-examined, which will prejudice the accused persons, and that the changing of weight of jewels would not amount to either altering the charge or addition of charge, and that the Court cannot suo-motu reopen the case for such an alteration to the prejudice of the accused and that erroneous order of the court below may be set aside. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

3. Inter alia, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the reading of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. would show that it is the discretion of the Court to alter the charge and that altering the weight of jewels in the charge would not cause any prejudice to the accused and that no valid reason is shown to set aside the order of the Court below.

4. Section 216 (1) of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-

"216. Court may alter charge.

(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced."

The very reading of Section shows that it is the discretion of the Court to alter or to add any charge before the judgment is pronounced.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that change in weight of the jewels is a part of charge and hence, it would amount to alteration of charge. It is for the Court to exercise its discretion. It is stated that witnesses have been recalled and reexamined and hence, the accused persons have been given adequate opportunities to meet the charges. In such situation, it would not cause any prejudice to the accused. Hence, there is no valid ground shown in this Revision to set aside the order of the court below dated 07.03.2012. The order challenged before this Court is confirmed and this Revision is devoid of merits, which suffers dismissal.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

08.02.2013
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mra

To

1. The Judge,
Mahila Court, 
Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station (Central)
Coimbatore. (Cr.No.38 of 2007)


































S. PALANIVELU,J. 

mra










CRIMINAL R.C.No.421 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012 













08.02.2013



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist