KANTI BHADRA SHAH AND ANR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 05-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
KANTI BHADRA SHAH AND A."IR. 
A 
v 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
JANUARY 5, 2COO 
[KT. THOMAS A."ID D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Sectiom~240 and 239--Framing of charge-Legal requirement of pass-
ing reasoned order by the Magistrate-As per section 239 Magistrate is to 
C 
record reasons in case of discharging the accused--Held, if Magistrate is to 
frame the charge there is no legal requirement for him to write an order 
showing reasons for framing a charge against the accused. 
A charge sheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against 
appellants for offences under sections 454 and 380 and 1208 of the Indian D 
Penal Code. The Magistrate issued process to the accused and after 
bearing framed charges against them. Thereafter, the Magistrate dis-
missed the petition filed by the appellants for discharging them. Aggrieved 
by the order, appellants filed a petition for quashing the charge before the 
High Court. The High Court quashed the charges framed but directed the E 
Magistrate to consider again whether the same charges could be framed 
against appellants afresh. Hence, this appeal. 
Dismis~ing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l.l. Section 239 Cr. P.C. requires a Magistrate to record his 
F 
reasons for dbcharging the accused but there is no such requirement if 
the Magistrate forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that 
the accused had committed the ommce which he is competent to try. In 
such a situation he is only required to frame a charge in writing against 
the accused. (31-D] 
1.2. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial judge 
has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other 
documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presum-
G 
ing that the accused has committed the offence. Therefore, the already 
burdened trial courts should not be further burdened with such an extra H 
27 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A wor!t. Time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the 
court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks 
causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at 
different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at 
all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would 
B further be slowed down. [30-F; 31-H; 32-A] 
1.3. It is clear from Section 245 that in cases instituted otherwise 
than on police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing 
the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. 31-E] 
C 
1.4. In the instant case as the Metropolitan Magistrate has chosen 
to frame the charge, the High Court, when moved by the accused for 
quashing of the charge, could have re-examined the records to consider 
whether the charge framed was sustainable or not. If the High Court 
decides to quash the charge it is open to the High Court to record the 
reasons thereof. The present order of the High Court is one of setting aside 
D the charge without stating any reason with the direction to the magistrate 
to condsider the materials once again and then to frame a charge for the 
same offence. This is simply to repeat what the Metropolitan Magistrate 
had done once at the first instance and it \l'ould be adding an unnecessary 
extra work on the trial court. However, the respondent has not challenged 
E the order of High Court. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court 
cannot be set-aside and it is left to the Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise 
his functions under Section 239 or 240 of the Code. [32-D-G] 
F 
G· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDIL!ION: Criminal Appeal No. 
5 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5. 7.99 of the Calcutta High 
Court in C.R.R. No. 1041 of 1999. 
S.B. Sanyal, A.P. Srivastava, (Manoj Kr. Mishra) for N.S. Bisht for 
the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
Though the appellants succeeded in the High Court their grievance 
H still persists as they are not out of woods now. Appdlants approached the 
~/ 
K. B. SHAH v. STATE [THOMAS, J.; 
29 
High Court to quash the charge framed again~t tht:m by a Metropolit<!Il A 
Magistrak. The High Court quashed it, but directed the Magistrate to 
consider again whether the same charges could be framed against appel-
lants afresh. 
We heard :earned counsd for thL: appellants, but we did not find it 
necessary to hear the sole respondent (State of West Bengal) as this appc

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