SOHAN LAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 21-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SOHAN LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
AUGUST 21, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 216, 319 and 398-
Expression of 'any person not being accused'-lnterpretation of-
Courts taking fresh cognizance of offences-Validity of. 
One •s• lodged a First Information Report alleging that the appel-
lants and two others were pelting stones at the house of informant, 
thereby causing damage to it and injuring three women who were sit-
ting at the chowk of the house. Aller completing investigation the police 
--- framed charges under sections 147, 323, 325, 335 and 427 IPC and 
forwarded the charge sheet to the Judicial Magistrate nnder section 173 
Cr.P.C. Taking cognizance and after hearing the arguments, the Judi-
cial Magistrate discharged appellants 4 and 5 of all the charges and 
ordered that appellants l, 2 and 3 be charged only under section 427 
IPC. 
~-
Later, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted an application to 
the Magistrate under Section 216 Cr. P.C. signed by Me of the Prosecu-
tion Witnesses, for amending the charge claiming that a prima facie 
case under sections 147, 325 and 336 IPC was made out. Aller hearing 
the parties, the Magistrate allowed the said application. This order was 
challenged before the High Court by way of Revision Petitions. The 
Petitions were dismissed by the High Court, holding that it was not a 
case of reviewing the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate, but 
was a case of taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of evidence 
recorded by the Magistrate himself, which was not prohibited in law. It 
·was also held that under section 319 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate was fully 
competent to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of evidence 
recorded by him though for the same offences order of discharge was 
passed by him earlier. 
Aggrieved at the aforesaid order of the High Court, the appellants 
have preferred these appeals, by special leave. 
· 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the Magistrate 
H 
809 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
committed error of jurisdiction in passing the subsequent order and ( 
that be could not have revised his own order discharging the appellants. "--
It was also contended that s. 319 Cr. P.C. was applicable only to a 
person not being the accused, and so the accused could not have been 
discharged. 
B 
The Respondent-State contended that the Magistrate found 
c 
enough materials for taking cognizance and framing charges under 
sections 147, 323, 325 and 336 IPC and he had jurisdiction to do so under 
section 3I9 Cr. P.C. irrespective of the application under s. 216 -· 
Cr. P.C. filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: I. I. Under Section 2I6 Cr. P .C., 'and to any charge' 
means the addition of a new charge. An alteration of a charge means 
changing or variation of an existing charge or making of a different 
charge. Addition to and alteration of a charge or charges implies one or 
D 
more existing charge or charges. When the appellants 4 and 5 were 
discharged of all the charges and no charge existed against them, natur-
ally an application under s. 2I6 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable in their 
case. The Magistrate therefore while disposing of the application under 
s. 216 Cr. P.C. only had no jurisdiction to frame charges against the 
appellants 4 and 5. In his order the Magistrate did not say that he was 
E 
proceeding suo motu against them though he said thats. 3I9 Cr. P.C. 
was also clear in this connection. [iI5B-D I 
I.2. As regards appellants I, 2 and 3, they were already accused 
in the case. Section 2I6 Cr. P.C. envisages the accused and the addi-
tions to and alterations of charge may be done at any time before 
F 
judgment is pronounced. The Magistrate on the basis of the evidence on 
record was satisfied that charges ought also to be framed under the 
other sections with which they were charged ·in the charge sheet. 
That was also the prayer in the Assistant Public Prosecutor's appli-
cation. However, the Magistrate invoked his jurisdiction under s. 3I9 
G 
Cr. P.C. [8I5E-F] 
2. The provisions of s. 3I9 had to be read in consonance with the 
provisions ofs. 398 of the Code. Once a person is found to have been the 
accused in the case he goes out of the reach ofs. 3I9. Whether he can be 
~-
dealt with under any other provisions of the Code is a different ques-
tion. In the case of the accus

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