Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant criminal revision filed under Section 438 read with 442 B.N.S.S 2023, the revisionist is assailing the validity of the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow, in criminal case bearing W/S Case No. 121571 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Baburao Sambhaji Maali and others) registered at Police Station Gosaignaj, District Lucknow, under Section 336 (3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) B.N.S an 66 D of I.T Act. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has framed charges against the revisionist under said penal sections. The revisionist has prayed to issue a direction to afford the revisionist an effective opportunity to prefer an application for discharge under section 262(1) of the B.N.S.S and to consider and decide the same in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the informant in the present case lodged an FIR at the concerned Police Station on 30.06.2025 stating that he had received a message on his Facebook Messenger as well as on his Whats
Framing charges without affording accused opportunity for discharge under BNSS Section 262(1), hearing, or legal aid to custodial accused violates mandatory procedure; order set aside and remanded.
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
The right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses before framing of charges is a valuable right, and the application of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge should be considered in light of this ri....
The judiciary must uphold statutory safeguards in charge framing, ensuring independent judicial reasoning and preserving defendants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
Framing of charges can occur in the absence of the accused, provided proper legal representation is present, ensuring no violation of the accused's rights.
The rejection of a discharge application is valid when a prima facie case exists based on the police report, regardless of subsequent exoneration in departmental inquiries.
Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of qua....
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code at the stage of framing of charges, highlighting the need to accept the material brought on record....
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
