DINESH TIWARI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 07-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 207 
DINESH TIWARI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1365 of 2014) 
'JULY 07, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 226, 227 and 
228 - Sessions Court charged the accused for additional C 
offence - Which was not part of charge-sheet nor was taken 
cognizance of by the Magistrate - The order challenged on 
the ground that additional charge was framed without hearing 
the accused - Held: at the stage of discharge u/s. 227, if the 
judge is of.the opinion that there is ground for presuming that o 
the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to 
frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the 
charge-sheet ~ For framing charge uls. 228, the Judge is not 
required to grant s~__arate hearing nor required to record 
detailed reasons-10r framing of the charge. 
E 
Investigating agency filed charge-sheet against 
appellant-accused ulss. 323, 504 and 506 IPC. CJM also 
took cognizance of offences ulss. 323, 504 and 506 IPC. 
After committal of the case, the Sessions Court framed 
additional charge uls. 302 IPC in addition to other 
charges. The appellant-accused filed petition u/s. 482 
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order of Sessions 
Judge. High Court dismissed the petition. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per Section 226 Cr.P.C., when the 
accused person is brought before the Court in 
pursuance of a commitment of the case u/s 209, the 
207 
F 
G 
H 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPOBTS 
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 
A prosecutor is required to open his case by describing the 
charge brought against the accused and stating by what 
evidence he proposes to prove his guilt of the accused . 
Section 227 deals with Discharge as per which, upon 
consideration of the records of the case and the 
B documents submitted before him and after hearing the 
submissions of the party accused and the prosecution, 
if the Judge is of the opinion that no sufficient ground is 
made out to proceed against the accused, he is required 
- to discharge the accused and record his reasons for 
c doing so. From sub Section (1) of Section 228, it is clear 
that after such consideration and tiearing, as given under 
Section 227, if Judge forms an opinion that there js a 
ground for presuming that the accused has committed 
an offence, ~udge may frame the charge(s). From 
0 Section 228 it is clear that no separate hearing is required 
to be given for framing the charge, if the accused is not 
discharged, upon consideration of the record of the case 
and documents and after hearing the submissions under 
Section 227. [Paras 7, 8 and 9] [211-D, E, G, H; 212-F-H] 
• 
E 
2. In the. present case, it is not alleged that the 
Sessions Judge has not followed Sections 226 and 227 
Cr.P.C before framing the charge. Further, it is not the 
case of the appellant that the court has not given him 
hearing at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. For 
F framing of charge u/s 228, the judge is not required to 
record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. 
On perusal of record and hearing the parties at the stage 
of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C., if the Judge is of opinion 
that there is ground for presuming that the accused has 
G committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge 
for such offence, even if not mentioned in the charge 
sheet. [Para 11] [215-G-H; 213-A-B] 
H 
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another 2012 (7) 
SCR 988: (2012) 9 SCC 460 - referred to. 
DINESH TIWARI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 209 
ANR. 
Case Law· Reference: 
2012 (7) SCR 988 
Referred to 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1365 of 2014 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2007 in 
CRLMA No.26878/2007 of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad. 
A 
B 
P.N. Mishra, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Anshuj Dhingra, 
C 
Anubhav Mehrotra for the Appellant. 
Vibhu Tiwari, Sudeep Kumar (For Ravi Prakash Mehrotra), 
Prashant Chaudhary for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. : 1. Leave 
granted. 
D 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
dated 11th December, 2007 passed by the High Court of 
E 
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application 
No.26878 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court 
dismissed the application filed by the appellant-accused u/s 482 
Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 1st September, 2007 
p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.