Back
High Court of Delhi
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Sunil Arora & Another
Versus
State of Delhi
Criminal Revision P. No. 360 of 2012
Decided On: 16-07-2012
Delay - Condonation of Delay - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a revision petition seeking to set aside an order framing charges against them under Sections 452/506/34, IPC. They argued that they were not provided with legal aid and were not given an opportunity to be heard before the charges were framed.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the right to a fair trial and the duty of the court to ensure legal aid and an opportunity to be heard for the accused. It found that the petitioners were not provided with legal aid and were not given an opportunity to be heard before the charges were framed, thus setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of legal aid and opportunity to be heard for the accused before the charges were framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles emphasizing the right to a fair trial, the duty of the court to ensure legal aid and an opportunity to be heard for the accused, and the requirement to provide an opportunity for the accused to engage a Counsel to defend them.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to pass appropriate orders after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.
Crl.M.A. No. 12221/2012 (delay)
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.
3. Application stands disposed of.
Crl. Rev. P. 360/2012 and Crl.M.A. No. 12222/2012
1. By this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek setting aside the order dated 20.4.2010 passed by the learned MM in case FIR No. 433/2008 thereby framing charge against the petitioners under Sections 452/506/34, IPC.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the above case the learned MM has ordered for framing of charge under Sections 452/506/34, IPC without even providing any legal aid to the petitioners and without giving an opportunity of being heard before passing the order framing the charge for committing the alleged offences under Sections 452/506/34, IPC.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the proceedings dated 20.4.2010 in this regard which is reproduced as under:
“20.4.2010
File received from transfer
Be checked and registered.
Present: APP for State.
Accused on bail.
Charge framed under Sections 452/506/34, IPC accordingly.
Case is adjourned for PE on 17.8.2010.
sd/-
MM/Delhi
20/04/10.”
4. Learned APR for the State submits that since the proceedings dated 20.4.2010 do not reflect that before passing the order framing charge under the aforesaid sections, any opportunity of being heard has been given either to the State or to the accused/petitioners, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Trial Court for hearing on the point of charge and pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity to the accused persons and State.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and APR for the State.
6. In Hussain Julfikar Ali (Mohd.) v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, I (2012) SLT 329=I (2012) CCR 189 (SC)=I (2012) DLT (Crl.) 253 (SC)=2012 (I) AD (Cr.) 401 (SC), it was held that every person has a right to a fair trial by a competent Court in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty. The object and purpose of providing competent legal aid to undefended and unrepresented accused persons is to see that the accused gets free and fair, just and reasonable trial of charge in a criminal case.
7. The Apex Court in the decision of Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and Others, III (1994) CCR 561 (SC)=1994 (4) SCC 142, observed that:
“6. Having regard to the fact that the offences, for which charge sheet was submitted in the instant case, and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case the Magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code at the time of framing of the charges. Under the above sections, the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and examine the accused, if he things necessary, and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless, he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239, Cr.P.C.; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him, he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240, Cr.P.C.”
8. At the stage of framing of charges, the right of accused is to be heard has been recognized beyond the pale of any doubt, as reported in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, VII (2004) SLT 339=IV (2004) CCR 343 (SC)=2005 (1) SCC 568.
9. It is apparent from the proceedings of the learned Trial Court that when the case was listed for framing of charge, the Court after marking the presence of the parties passed the impugned order framing charge and did not even care to ask t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
