The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 216 of the Code, allowing alteration of charge before the pronouncement of judgment, equally apply to the accusation under Section 251, and the exercise of inherent powers would not be required to correct an order under Section 251 of the Code.

JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, Bankura in Complaint Case No. 05C of 2006, thereby allowing an application filed by the prosecution seeking correction and modification of an order passed earlier under Section 251 of the Code.

2. On 05.09.2005 a petition of complaint was filed against the accused/petitioner alleging commission of an offence under Rule 11 (2) of the West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1951 read with the amendment of the Indian Forest (West Bengal Amendment) Act 1988, Section 7 and under Sections 65A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offence on 16.01.2006. The accused appeared and the substance of the accusation was stated to him under Section 251 of the Code on 18.11.2006. The accused/ petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After examination of the prosecution witnesses and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, the defence witnesses were being examined. At this stage the prosecution filed an application on 02.06.2018 contending that the offences were not properly explained to the accused and a correction and/or modification of the order passed earlier under Section 251 of the Code was required so that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. After hearing the parties, the Learned Magistrate was pleased to pass the impugned order allowing such modification as prayed for.

3. Mr. Amber Majumdar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted as follows. In the present case no formal charge was framed. Only the particulars of the offence alleged were stated to the petitioner. Therefore, there was no scope of correcting and/or altering the earlier order passed under Section 251 of the Code. Section 216 of the Code could not be invoked to alter the charge as no formal charge had been framed. Besides, the bar on reviewing a final order as contained in Section 362 of the Code would very much be applicable in the present case and in view of the same, the order passed under Section 251 of the Code could not be reviewed and/or modified. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AR Antulay Versus R.S. Nayak and Another, (1984) 2 SCC 500 and it was submitted that a Court should read a provision as it is and ought not rewrite it to suit its convenience. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court passed in Chiranjit Pal Versus West Bengal Khadi and Village Industries Board and Another, (1969) AIR Calcutta 152 . It was submitted that when the Code of Criminal Procedure directs to do things in a certain way, the same should be done in the said way only and not otherwise. The decisions relied on by the Learned Court below as reported in AIR 1955 Cal 558 and AIR 1956 Nag 71 were distinguished on facts because there the applications were made by the accused and not by the prosecution. On facts, the prosecution ought not be permitted to have an order passed under Section 251 of the Code corrected after a lapse of about twelve years.

4. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the opposite party no. 2 submitted as follows. Section 251 of the Code did not require any application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer. The substance of the accusation was merely to be stated to the accused. Such an order was neither a final one nor was in the nature of a judgment. Therefore, Section 362 of the Code would not act as a bar on a review and/or modification of such an order. Section 216 of the Code permitted a Court to alter and/or add to any charge before the pronouncement of a judgment. This could very well be read together with the provision of explaining an accusation under Section 251 of the Code. There were some errors in mentioning the particular provisions which were violated. As such, it would be in the i