SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
Leela Narvekar – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Narvekar @ Cortez & Others – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Nigel Da Costa Frias, Maria Correia, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor.

Once a charge is framed against the accused, there is no subsequent stage at which the accused can be discharged.

Headnote:

Children's Act - Dropping of charge under Section 2 (m) (i) punishable under Section 8 (2) - Goa Children's Act, 2003 - Sections 143, 144, 448, 427, 323 read with Section 149 IPC - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The case involves an altercation between two families resulting in injuries to three young girls falling within the definition of 'child' under the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The President of Children's Court dropped the charge under Section 2 (m) (i) punishable under Section 8 (2) of the Act against accused nos.1 to 9 and referred the matter back to the Sessions Court.

Finding of the Court:

The President of Children's Court committed an illegality by dropping the charge under the Children's Act, which had already been framed against the accused.

Issues: The main issue was whether the President of Children's Court was correct in dropping the charge under the Goa Children's Act after already framing the charge against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a charge is framed against the accused, there is no subsequent stage at which the accused can be discharged. The trial has to proceed further according to the procedure provided in the following Section 228 Cr.P.C and the process cannot be put to back-gear for discharging the accused thereafter under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Application is allowed, and the impugned order passed by the President of Children's Court is quashed and set aside. The case is remitted back to the President of the Children's Court at Panaji.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by an order of the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji, which has dropped charge under Section 2 (m) (i) punishable under Section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 against accused nos.1 to 9, the petitioner (Original complainant) has preferred this Criminal Revision Application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The brief facts are that the respondents-original accused nos.1 to 9 alleged to have caused injuries in an altercation between two families on 24.9.2014 in which three young girls, aged about 10 years 3 months, 13 years and 1 month and 17 years and 1 month suffered injuries. Admittedly, those three girls fall within the definition of term, “child” as per Section 2 (d) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. It seems that it was an incident of trespass and assault on the family of the complainant by respondents no.1 to 9. The only question which arises for determination is as to whether after already framing charge against the respondents no.1 to 9 by the President of Children's Court under Sections 143, 144, 448, 427, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 2 (m) (i) punishable under Section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, the President of Children's Court was correct in dropping Section 2(m) (i) of the Goa Children's Act and then referring the matter back to the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji, for allotting the same to the learned Magistrate's Court having jurisdiction?

3. I have heard Shri Nigel Da Costa, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri S.R.Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.10 and Shri Manoj Naik, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 9.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Rivankar took strong exception to the impugned order, as according to them, once a charge is framed, the Court cannot discharge the accused and revert back to a stage, which is not provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. That would tantamount to reviewing her own order framing charge earlier, which is not the spirit of Section 216 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate dropping of charge.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 9 that it being an interlocutory order, the Revision is not maintainable.

6. Sub-section (1) of Section 216 Cr.P.C. provides that any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. This provision does not speak about discharge of an accused against whom charge for an offence has already been framed and it speaks only for alteration or addition to any charge which has already been framed against such an accused. Chapter-XVIII of the Code provides for trial before a Court of Session and Section 227 thereof provides that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Section 228 provides that if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which has exclusively triable by the Court he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. It is, thus, clear that in a case which is triable before a Court of Sessions, here it is the President of the Children's Court under the Goa Children's Act, these provisions provide in what condition and in what manner the accused can be discharged for an offence for which he has been prosecuted and in what condition and manner the Sessions Judge would proceed to frame charge 6 against him. A conjoint reading of Section 216 and Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that these provisions are entirely separate and independent to each other











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top