Alteration of charges under Section 217 Cr.P.C. requires the recall and re-examination of witnesses to ensure a fair trial.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing/setting of the order dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the CJM, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the application filed by the petitioner not to start a de novo Trial has been rejected, in a Trial arising out of FIR No.166 dated 01.07.2005 under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station City Muktsar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.166 dated 01.07.2005 under Sections 406/420 IPC, Police Station City, Sri Muktsar Sahib was registered on the basis of a complaint moved by the Manager Pungrain to the S.S.P. Sri Muktsar Sahib as per which the proprietor of M/s Taj Industries, Sri Muktsar namely, Tarsem Kumar (petitioner) had misappropriated paddy amounting to Rs.31,89,147/-.

3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation was concluded and a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. came to be presented against the petitioner. Based on the said report, charges came to be framed under Sections 420 and 406 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar vide order dated 11.05.2006.

4. The petitioner/accused preferred a revision petition against the aforementioned order of framing of charges. It may be pertinent to mention here that one Shri R.L. Jagga, Advocate represented the petitioner. The complainant remained unrepresented. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 12.12.2006 set aside the charge under Section 420 IPC but held that the facts of the case also attracted the offence under Section 409 IPC.

5. The petitioner filed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.CRM-M-49205-2007. The said petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2011 with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments available to him before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

6. Meanwhile, neither the State nor the accused disclosed to the Trial Court that the charge had been ordered to be amended vide order dated 12.12.2006. Therefore, the Trial proceeded on the basis of the order framing charges under Section 406/420 IPC. Ultimately, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment dated 06.03.2014. It would be relevant to mention here that the complainant was unrepresented whereas the petitioner was represented by the same counsel.

7. It was at this stage that the complainant filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. At that stage, it was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court that originally the charge had been framed under Section 406/420 IPC vide order dated 11.05.2006. Subsequently, on a revision petition preferred by the petitioner/accused, the charge had been ordered to be amended inasmuch as Section 420 IPC was deleted and Section 409 IPC was ordered to be added vide order dated 12.12.2006.

While narrating the sequences of events, the Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib came to the conclusion that it had not been brought to the notice of the Trial Court by either the State or the accused that the charges had been ordered to be amended. Therefore, the appeal was partly accepted with the observations that the judgment of the Trial Court was to be set aside and reversed with the directions that the Trial Court would proceed against the accused as per directions of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad Hoc), Fast Track Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 12.12.2006. A further direction was issued to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of 04 months from the first date of hearing. The relevant extract of the said remand order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) is reproduced below:-

"12.In these circumstances, it is made out that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, framed charge for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the accused vide order dated