The Court emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting and applying the provisions of CrPC Chapter XVIII, particularly in relation to the consideration of evidence and framing of charges in sessions triable cases.

JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1. The two revisional applications being CRR 804 of 2024 and CRR 1112 of 2024 are disposed of by a common order as in CRR 804 of 2024 the subject matter of challenge relates to the order dated 1.02.2024 passed in Sessions Case no. 78/23 wherein the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta was pleased to dismiss the application for discharge prayed on behalf of the present petitioner by way of an application dated 19.12.2023; while in CRR 1112 of 2024 the subject matter of challenge is an order dated 19.02.2024 wherein the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 78/23 was pleased to frame charges against the petitioner under Section 498A/307/494/336 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Mr. P. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenged both the orders passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court on the grounds that the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court failed to appreciate the earlier order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta as also did not adhere to the relevant provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to sessions triable case. According to the learned Advocate there are no materials to frame charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court acted as a post office and without perusing the materials available in the documents on which the prosecution has relied upon to prove its case mechanically framed the charges. Learned Advocate took strong exception with regard to the evidence of PW1 being taken into account, which was recorded by the learned Magistrate and submitted that the same cannot be looked into while considering the charges and the learned Sessions Judge in fact, took the same into consideration while dismissing the application for discharge which was filed on behalf of the petitioner and automatically framed the charges under Sections 498A/307/494/336 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Advocate emphasised that the provision of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been wrongly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and nowhere the prejudice caused to the accused was considered as the relevant provisions of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were totally ignored. According to the learned Advocate, under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Sessions Court is restricted to look only in respect of the materials which were collected by the investigating agency in course of investigation and there is no provision which would allow the learned Sessions Court to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was recorded by the learned Magistrate. To substantiate his argument learned Advocate relied upon certain authorities which included judgements of different High Courts and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of High Court of Gujarat being Vasurbahi Bhurabhai Bela –Vs. – State of Gujarat in R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 7660 of 2021, emphasise was laid on paragraph 34 which is as follows:

“34. Thus, from the law that is enunciated in the aforesaid judgments by various High Courts, the legal position is made very clear that when a case is committed by the Magistrate under section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Sessions Judge has to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter XVIII of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the stage of framing charges he has to invariably take up a de novo trial. It is imperative on his part to take up de novo trial. He cannot act upon the evidence that was recorded by the Magistrate which is a committal Court. No prejudice would be caused to the accused by taking up such de novo trial by the Sessions Court as has been contended by the petitioner. T