Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5035
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.M. MODAK, J
Manthan Kiran Bhosale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application No.109 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Karma Vivan, Mr. Tejas Kothalikar, Ms. Isha Rakesh Singh, Advocate Neel Paralikar
For the Respondents: Mr. Aniket Nikam, Mr. Sumit Patil, C.D. Mali
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C. is essential to ensure a fair judicial process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 226 and 227 - Non-compliance with procedure for framing charges raised - The trial Court's failure to adhere to the mandatory provisions regarding prosecution and charge framing process invalidates the proceedings - The Court emphasizes that these provisions are not mere formalities. (Paras 3, 9, 12, 14)
(B) Appeal - The petitioner raises grievance concerning the procedural compliance which must be rectified in subsequent proceedings. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charges in Sessions Case No.472/2023, arguing the trial Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Code during the charge framing process. The notes in the roznama clearly indicate the irregularities.
Findings of Court:
The charge framed is invalidated due to non-compliance with procedural requirements dictated by the Code, necessitating rectification at the trial level.
Issues: The main issue concerned the adherence to procedural mandates by the trial Court during the charge framing process.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes strict compliance with Sections 226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C., holding that these procedures ensure a fair trial and are not mere formalities.
Result: Petition allowed; charge framing set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the roznama details indicate procedural non-compliance. (Para 6) |
| 2. inadequate adherence to procedural mandates invalidates charge framing. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. trial court must ensure compliance in future proceedings. (Para 12 , 14) |
Digitally signed by CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: DATE : 15th July 2025.
2025.07.23
17:00:12 +0530 ORAL JUDGMENT :
The Intervention Application No.633/2025 filed on behalf of informant is allowed.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner/one of the accused involved in Sessions Case No.472/2023. Also heard learned Advocate Nikam for the first informant and learned APP appearing for the State.
3. The only issue raised in this petition is “about non-compliance of the provisions of Section 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” Section 226 mandates the Prosecutor in-charge of the case to open up the prosecution case whereas Section 227 mandates the Court to hear both the sides and then to take a decision whether to frame the charge or not?
4. In this case, the trial Court has framed the charge on 18th March 2024. It is for the offences punishable under Sections 302,363,364,364-A, 201 r/w Section 120B and Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66-C of the IT Act.
5. In order to buttress his submission the learned Advocate for the Petitioner invited my attention to the entries in the Roznama dt.
18 th March 2024. In nutshell, the Roznama reads thus:
(i) Both the accused are produced through V.C. from Taloja Jail.
(ii) The Special Public Prosecutor was present (iii) Advocate for the Accused No.1/Petitioner was present, however, learned Advocate for Accused No.2 was absent.
(iv) The charge was explained to both the accused and it was framed.
(v) The procedure for recording their pleas was completed.
6. About these notings both of them have made their respective submissions. According to the Petitioners, the roznama is indication of the happenings before the Court and the fact that the procedure was not complied with and that is why there is no noting in the Roznama. Petitioner’s counsel relied upon the various judgments. He invited my attention to observations in case of Bharat Uttam Rajurkar v/s. State of Maharashtra1 Cr. WP No. 1232/17 dated 12th January 2018. Specifically, he read the observations in Para No.7.
7. As against this, Mr. Nikam and learned APP submitted that the grievance made in this petition ought to have been made before the trial Court. It is for the reason trial Court is the best forum and it can decide whether the procedure is followed or not. My attention is also invited to the noting in the Roznama dated 2nd April 2024. It records learned Advocate for both the accused were absent. Mr. Nikam relied upon one more circumstance. In all the Roznamas the fact that there is no reference of any protest on behalf of the Petitioner itself suggest that the procedure was followed.
8. To buttress his submission, he relied upon the observations in case of Prathamesh Sitaram Latne and ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra2 and observations in case of Om Wati (Smt.) and anr. v/s. State., through Delhi Admn. And ors.3
1 Cr. Writ Petition No.1232/2017
2 Criminal Application No.1688 of 2019
3 (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases C O N S I D E R A T I O N
9. The provisions of Section 226 and 227 of Cr.P.C . need to be complied. There is a definite purpose in incorporating Section 226 in the Code. It is a duty of the Prosecutor in-charge to open up the case so that the trial Court will come to know what is the evidence collected by the investigating agency. Certainly, it is helpful to the trial Court to arrive at a proper decision whether to frame the charge or not to frame. There is also definite purpose for incorporating Section 227 in the Code. It nowhere says about framing of charge. That stage comes later on. The test is laid down in Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If we go by the chronology of the sections, it can be inferred that these stages are to be fo
