Court reiterates that once charges are framed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., discharge is not an option; Trial must lead to conviction or acquittal.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, comprising Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, has reinforced the procedural sanctity of criminal trials by declaring that once charges are framed under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused cannot be discharged under Section 227 or Section 216. The court emphasized that Section 216 only allows for the addition or alteration of charges, rather than deletion or discharge, thereby mandating the trial to proceed to either a conviction or an acquittal.
The case in question involved Walmik Baburao Karad, who filed an appeal against the State of Maharashtra. Karad sought an amendment to his appeal, challenging an earlier order by the Special Judge, Beed, which framed charges against him. However, the court, citing precedents from the Supreme Court, particularly the cases of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, dismissed the appeal, stating that the framing of charges locks the course of the trial towards a judicial conclusion, leaving no room for discharge at that stage.
The judgment draws from the Supreme Court's interpretation, which asserts the legislative intent behind Section 216 as providing only for addition or alteration, excluding the possibility of dropping charges. The court underscored that if the legislature had intended to allow deletion at the trial stage, it would have clearly stated so. This stance is crucial in ensuring that trials are not circumvented, thereby safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes.
The counsel for the appellant, acknowledging the court's position, sought withdrawal of the appeal and the amendment application, retaining the liberty to pursue other legal remedies. Consequently, the court disposed of the appeal and all related applications.
This ruling highlights the judiciary's commitment to adhering to procedural laws, ensuring that once a trial is set in motion through the framing of charges, it proceeds to its logical conclusion without premature termination. This decision not only impacts the current case but also sets a precedent for future cases where discharge is sought post-charge framing.
Bottom Line:
Once charges have been framed by the trial court under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., the accused cannot be discharged either under Section 227 or Section 216 of Cr.P.C. The trial court is only empowered to add or alter charges under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s): Section 228, Section 227, Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
