R/CR.RA/788/2004 CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 788 of 2004

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

======================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see

the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the

judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as

to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or

any order made thereunder ?

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

======================================

SUDHABEN GOPALBHAI DARJI....Applicant(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)

======================================

Appearance:

MR AD SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MS JD JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

======================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

Date : 21/01/2015

CAV JUDGMENT

1.

Rule. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri waives service of notice of rule for

the respondent – State.

Page 1 of 11

R/CR.RA/788/2004 CAV JUDGMENT

2.

The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order

dated 25.10.2004 below Exh.3 in Sessions Case No.101 of 2004

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4 of

Ahmedabad (Rural). By such impugned judgment and order,

application by the present applicant to discharge her for the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 498(A), 506(2)

and 114 of I.P.C. read with Section 135(1) of B.P. Act. has been

rejected.

3.

I have heard Mr. A.D. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant

and Ms. J.D. Jhaveri, learned APP for the respondent-State and

perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

4.

The applicant has produced the chargesheet and Police papers

forming part of the chargesheet.

5.

The sum and substance of the application is to the effect that even

if chargesheet papers are considered as it is, as an evidence before

the Court, practically, there is no evidence or allegation in any of

the statements by any of the witnesses not only to confirm the

commission of offence by the present applicant, but even to allege

that she is involved in alleged offences in any manner whatsoever.

Since such discharge application is governed by Section 227 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it would be appropriate to

recollect such provision.

Section 227:

“Discharge. - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and

the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the

submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the

Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his

Page 2 of 11

R/CR.RA/788/2004 CAV JUDGMENT

reasons for so doing.”

6.

On bare perusal of the provision of law, it is clear that while

deciding such discharge application and, thereby, practically while

framing the charge, the Court has to consider the record of the

case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the

submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge has to

consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against

the accused or not. If provision of Section 227 is read with

provision of Section 228 providing the powers to the Court to

frame charge, it would be clear that even if Judge is of the opinion

that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an

offence. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused, the Court shall discharge the accused and record his

re