Crl.Rev.P.No 218/2012 Page 1 of 6

*

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl. Rev. P. No. 218/2012

Date of Decision: 25.04.2012

MAHABIR PRASAD RUNGTA

…… Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari with Mr.

Nagendra Kasana, Advocate.

Versus

STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) …… Respondents

Through:

Ms. Fizani Husain, APP

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397/401 CrPC read

with Section 482 CrPC against the order dated 5.1.2012 of ACMM, Tis

Hazari Courts, passed in FIR No. 565/1998, P.S. Prasad Nagar. The

petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 409/420/468/471/120B

IPC. Vide order dated 27^th April, 2011, the learned ACMM ordered for

framing of charges and in the last paragraph 9 recorded as under:

Be posted for appearance of accused persons”

2.

In pursuance of the said order, the charges were framed under

aforesaid Sections on 13^th July, 2011. The petitioner pleaded not guilty

2012:DHC:2809

Crl.Rev.P.No 218/2012 Page 2 of 6

to the charges and the case was fixed for complainant’s evidence on

8.9.2011. In the mean, an application had been filed by the learned

Prosecutor on 01.07.2011 stating that though the summoning order

dated 27.4.2011 had disclosed about the conspiracy and active

participation of all accused persons but, inadvertently due to

typographical mistake, Section 120B IPC remained to be mentioned at

the end of the order. A prayer was made vide this application to add

Section 120B IPC in the order dated 27.4.2011. Copy of this application

was provided to all the accused persons and the matter was also posted

for arguments on this application.

3. Vide the impugned order dated 5.1.2012, the learned ACMM

allowed the application of the learned Prosecutor and after discussing

the contentions of the counsel of both the parties, in the last paragraph

recorded as under:

on 13.07.11 by adding Section 120-B IPC in Charge”.

4. It is this order of the ACMM, which is assailed in the present

revision petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that once the charges have been framed based on the order of charge

and there being no charge framed under Section 120B IPC, the learned

ACMM had no power to review her own order and to make addition of

Section 120B IPC in the charge. It was submitted that there was a clear

bar of making any alteration or review as per Section 362 CrPC. The

submission of the learned counsel was that the non-mentioning of

2012:DHC:2809

Crl.Rev.P.No 218/2012 Page 3 of 6

Section 120B IPC in the order of charge as also in the charge framed

cannot be said due to inadvertent omission or typographical mistake, but

the learned ACMM had not chosen to frame charge under this Section

and now, in the absence of there being any additional evidence against

the petitioner, additional charge could not be framed under Section

120B IPC. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Union of

India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr., AIR 1979 SC 366.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

for the State and perused the record.

6. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the addition of Section 120B IPC would amount to

alteration or review of the order by the ACMM and the same was barred

under Section 362 CrPC, it may be noted that this submission is

apparently misconceived. Section 362 CrPC creates bar in the alteration

or review of judgment or final order disposing of a case finally. It was

not applicable in the