Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 2044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. Jadhav, J.
Vithhalrao S/o Kondiba Waghmare and Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S. Bhagyanagar, Nanded and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 403, 404, 405 Of 2015
Decided On : 30-08-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. D.M. Shinde
For the Respondents: Miss R.P. Gour, Mr. S.V. Kale
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford the accused an opportunity to be heard before exercising revisional powers, as mandated by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Revisional Powers - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 109, 114, 294, 497, 292, 328 - The court discussed the exercise of revisional powers by the Sessions Judge suo motto and the requirement to provide an opportunity of being heard to the accused before passing any adverse order. The judgment highlighted the provisions of Section 399 and 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and emphasized the necessity of affording the accused an opportunity to be heard personally or through their counsel.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed writ petitions against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded, challenging the rejection of their discharge application for certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The main grievance was the lack of opportunity to be heard before the revisional powers were exercised by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Judge had exercised revisional powers suo motto without providing an opportunity of being heard to the accused, which violated the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was the violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of opportunity for the accused to be heard before the exercise of revisional powers by the Sessions Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity of being heard to the accused before passing any adverse order, as mandated by the provisions of Section 399 and 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge were quashed and set aside, and the Sessions Judge was directed to hear the criminal revision applications and the suo motto revision proceeding afresh, providing an opportunity of being heard to the accused.
V.K. Jadhav, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, heard finally.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common Judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 91 of 2014 and Criminal Revision Application No.92 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 13.2.2015, the original accused in Sessions Case No.208 of 2013 has preferred these writ petitions.
3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petitions, are as follows :
(a) On the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 Priya Waghmare Crime bearing No.10/2012 came to be registered at Police Station, Bhagyanagar, District Nanded for the offence punishable under section 498A, 497, 328, 294, 292, 323, 504, 506, 509, 114, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, Police Station Bhagya Nagar has submitted charge sheet in the Court and the case is committed to the Sessions Court as offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners/accused are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.
(b) The petitioners have filed an application Exh.55 in the said Sessions Case 208 of 2013 for discharge. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded by order dated 14.3.2014 below Exh.55 in Sessions Case No.208 of 2013 partly allowed the said application and all the petitioners/original accused were discharged for the offences punishable under sections 109, 114, 294 and Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Except the petitioner-accused No.1 Kailashchandra s/o Vitthal Waghmare all the accused are also discharged for the offence punishable under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded has rejected the application so far as prayer claiming discharge for the offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-accused preferred two Criminal Revision Applications bearing No.91 of 2014 and 92 of 2014 respectively. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded by his common Judgment and order dated 13.2.2015 in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Applications set aside the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge below Exh.55 in Sessions Case No.208 of 2003 and restored the application Exh.55 with a direction to decide the said application afresh by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the discussion made in the Judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, these two writ petitions have been preferred.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded has discharged the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 109, 114, 294 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code and also discharged all the accused for the offence punishable under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code except the petitioner-accused No.1 Kailashchandra. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer to the extent seeking discharge for the offence punishable under section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said order to the extent of rejection of prayer seeking discharge for the offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners/original accused have preferred the said Criminal Revision Applications and also the petitioner original accused Kailashchandra preferred Criminal Revision Application along with them to the extent of rejection of his prayer seeking discharge for the offence punishable under section 292 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submits that, the State has not preferred any Criminal Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded below Exh.55 in Sessions Case No. 208 of 2013.
5. The learned counsel further submits that, the Sessions Judge, Nanded while deciding said criminal revision application Nos.91 of 2014 and 92 of 2014 has exercised the revisional power suo motto to th
