The proceedings under Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. culminate in an order framing charge only after the plea of the accused is taken, and the accused is provided with a meaningful hearing as per Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. Would the proceedings as provided in Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure culminate in an order framing charge before the plea of the accused is taken? This is the short question raised before me in these Criminal Revision Petitions.

2. The Revision Petitioner is alleged to have committed various offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Revision Petitioner challenged the final report by filing Crl. M.C. Nos. 167/2022, 155/2022 and 158/2022 before this Court. As per common order dated 15.02.2022 this Court directed the Court below as follows:

“Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous cases are closed, without adverting to any contentions on merit, leaving the right open to the petitioner to seek discharge before the court below, if the charges are not framed. If such application is filed before the next posting date as above, the court below may consider it and pass orders thereon in accordance with law.”

4. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner filed Crl. M.P. Nos. 27/2022, 28/2022 and 26/2022 seeking discharge before the Court below. The Court on 21.02.2022 passed the following order in the applications:

“Charge has been framed on 31.01.2022, hence this petition stands disposed of as per the order of the Honourable High court of Kerala in Crl. M.C.......”

The orders dated 21.02.2022 disposing of the Crl. M.P. as above are under challenge before this Court.

5. The learned counsel submitted that the Revision Petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the proceedings of the Court below under Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. have not culminated in an order framing charge as the plea of the Revision Petitioner has not been taken.

6. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the CBI contended that as the first part of Section 240 Cr.P.C. is over, the process of framing of charge has become final and what is left is recording of the plea of the accused, a formality in which the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or not.

7. Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. reads thus:

“240. Framing of charge:

(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

8. The learned Central Government Counsel contended that the construction of Section 240 Cr.P.C. by applying the golden rule of interpretation would lead to the conclusion that once the Court decides to frame charge and the charge is framed in writing, the process of framing of charge is over. It is further submitted that the procedure provided in sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.P.C. is an independent procedure to be undertaken after the framing of charge.

9. The learned Central Government Counsel argued that the word ‘then’ in sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the process of framing of charge is confined to sub-section (1) of Section 240 Cr.P.C.

10. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, per contra, contended that the act of framing of charge by the Court is completed only after the plea of the accused is taken.

11. The proceedings under Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. are to be read together. In these proceedings, the Court considers the police reports and the documents placed before it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and makes such examination, if any, of the accused and gives the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard. If the Court considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, the Court passes an order of discharge under Section 239 Cr