An original informant lacks locus standi to amend charges in a chargesheeted criminal case.

JUDGEMENT

1.The present revision application has been filed by the applicant abovenamed, who was the original informant in Sessions Case No.3/99, pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar.

2.The present applicant submitted an application before the said court during pendency of trial for conversion of charge. The charge was framed for an offence punishable under section 324 IPC. The said application was filed before the trial court stating that the concerned accused person had used deadly weapon, i.e. Dharia, and had caused grievous hurt. It was also the case of the applicant before the trial court that a fracture was caused to the injured and, therefore, when the grievous hurt was caused by deadly weapon, the offence would be one punishable under section 326 IPC and not one punishable under section 324 IPC and, therefore, the charge for the offence punishable under section 326 IPC should be added.

3.After hearing the learned advocates for parties, the trial court dismissed the said application by order dated 11.1.2001, mainly, on the ground that the evidence had already been concluded and the application was filed very late. It was also found by the trial court that there was no reason for amending the charge and consequently the said application was dismissed by the learned trial judge.

4.Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the petitioner has preferred the present revision application before this court.

5.It has been mainly contended that though the offence was one punishable under section 326 IPC, the charge has not been amended and, therefore, the order of the trial court is, ex-facie, illegal. It is, therefore, prayed that the present revision application be allowed, and the order of the trial court be set aside, and the trial court be directed to frame the charge of offence punishable under section 326 IPC, and to proceed ahead with the trial after amending the charge as aforesaid.

6.Notice was issued at the first instance and the Rule was issued thereafter. Mr.K.G.Sheth, learned APP appeared on behalf of the State at the relevant point of time and Mr.A.J.Shah appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos 2 & 3 who are original accused before the trial court and opposed this revision application when the arguments were advanced by the learned advocates for the parties.

7.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor as well as the learned advocate for respondents have strongly opposed this application stating that the case before the Sessions Court was a chargesheeted case and, therefore, the present applicant had no locus standi to file an application for amending the charge before the trial court, and when the application was dismissed he does not have any locus standi to challenge the said order before this Court.

8.As against the above, the learned advocate for the applicant has contended that any person can come before this court in revision with respect to the illegality committed by the trial court and, therefore, the plea of locus standi does not arise.

9.In support of his argument, the learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the decision in the matter of DASAUNDHA SINGH vs LACHHMAN SING & ORS reported in AIR 1929 Lahore 127(1) wherein it has been observed that "a petition, that a charge has been improperly framed and that it should be changed to one another need not necessarily be made by the Public Prosecutor or with his consent."

10.Firstly, the aforesaid decision is of another High Court and not of this High Court. Secondly, conside