R.S. MISHRA versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 01-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 338 
R.S. MISHRA 
V. 
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
ss. 227 and 228 - Role of the Judge at the stage of 
framing of charge - Inter-connection between ss.227 and 228 
- Held: When the charge under a particular section is 
dropped or diluted, (although the accused is not discharged), 
some minimum reasons in nutshell are expected to be 
0 recorded disclosing the consideration of the material on record 
- On the analogy of a discharge order, the Judge must give 
his reasons at/east in a nutshell, if he is dropping or diluting 
any charge, particularly a serious one - It is also necessary 
for the reason that the order should inform the prosecution as 
E to what went wrong with the investigation - Besides, if the 
matter is carried to the higher Court, it will be able to know as 
to why a charge was dropped or diluted. 
s.228 - Dereliction of duty by Sessions Judge in framing 
of correct charge against accused in a criminal case involving 
F death of a young person - Judicial order passed by appellant-
Sessions Judge diluting the charge against the accused -
Suo-moto Criminal revision pursuant to note by the Inspecting 
Judge - Revisional Court made observations against the 
appellant for not framing charge under s. 302 /PC against the 
G accused and also made suggestion to High Court 
Administration to take corrective steps with respect to the 
appellant - High Court Administration examined the record 
of the appellant and denied him selection grade - Challenge 
to observations/suggestions of Revisional Court which led to 
H 
338 
R.S. MISHRA v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 
339 
the denial of selection grade - Held: Not tenable - A Judge A 
is expected to look into the material placed before him and if 
he is of the view that no case is made out for framing of a 
charge, his order ought to be clear and self-explanatory with 
respect to the material placed before him - In the present 
case, all that the appellant stated in his judicial order was, that B 
on consideration of the material available in the case diary, 
he found no sufficient material to frame the charge under 
s.302 -/PC - He also did not state in his order as to why he 
was of the opinion that the material available in the case diary 
was insufficient - Appellant did not even refer to the statement c 
of the injured eye witness, and the supporting medical papers 
on record - Such a bald order raises a serious doubt about 
the bona fides of the decision rendered - It was not a case of 
grave and sudden provocation, thus, there was a prima facie 
case to frame charge under s.302 /PC - The reason given 0 
for dropping the charge under s.302 was totally inadequate 
and untenable, and showed non-application of mind by the 
appellant to the statements in the charge-sheet and the 
medical record - No explanation was given as to why a 
charge under s.304 /PC was preferred to one under s.302 IPC 
- It cannot be said that the appellant did not have requisite 
E 
experience to pass a correct legal order under s.228 CrPC -
That apart, the impugned order in Revision contained only a 
correctional suggestion to the High Court Administration 
·which the Administration accepted - It was not a case of 
making any adverse or disparaging remarks - The appellant F 
' was responsible for unjustified dilution of the charge and, 
therefore, thorough checking of his service record was 
necessary which is, what was directed in the impugned order 
of the Revisional Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 
304. 
G 
The appellant is a· retired Additional Sessions Judge 
of the State of Orissa. He challenged the judgment 
rendered by a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court in 
suo-moto Criminal Revision, arising out of Session Trial 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 
A Case, to the extent the Judge made certain observations 
against the appellant who had decided that Sessions 
case. These 'remarks were made on account of the 
appellant not framing the charge under Section 302 IPC 
against the accused in that case. The Single Judge held 
B that the appellant had committed a blunder in not framing 
the charge under Section 302 IPC and made certain 
observations about the manner in which the appellant 
had passed the order, and also gave some correctional 
suggestions about the appellant. The Single Judge, 
c however, did not deem it fit

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