GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Ors.

A FIR u/s. 365 IPC was lodged, alleging that appellant was kidnapped by the private respondents alongwith 5 other accused. Police, after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet against only two accused (private respondents) u/ss. 323 and 343 r/w Section 34 IPC. Both the accused-respondents filed an application pleading guilty for the offences u/ss. 323 and 343 IPC,before the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The trial court entertained the application forth with and concluded the trial immediately convicting the accused c u/ss. 323 and 343 r/w Section 34 IPC, without issuing notice to the appellant. The accused were further granted benefit of provisions of s.12 of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, holding that the order passed in the criminal case, shall not have any adverse affect on the Government service of the accused persons. Appellant challenged the order of trial court by filing application u/ s. 482 Cr.P.C. High Court dismissed the application holding that the appellant had not challenged the order taking cognizance nor any objection was raised when • charges were read over to the accused. Hence the 0 E present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The appellant has been raising the F grievance from the very beginning that the police has not been investigating the case properly and for that purpose, he had also approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition, wherein several directions had been issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to the Director G General of Police for a fair investigation. In the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., appellant gave a full version as to how he had been kidnapped and illegally detained. Appellant named 7 persons and serious allegations of criminal intimidation, threats, terrorising and causing physical harm had been H GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 395 & ORS. levelled. The police after concluding the investigation A filed a charge sheet only against the two accused and, that too, only for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 343 IPC. [Para 7] [401-C·F] B

1.2. Had the trial court applied its mind to the material collected during investigation and particularly the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the charges could have been framed also under Section 365 IPC. In that case, the Gram Nyayalaya would have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the maximum sentence for that offence is 7 years imprisonment with C fine, and the Magistrate in that situation, was bound to commit the matter to the Sessions court. Further, before the statements of the witnesses could be recorded, the private respondents filed an application admitting their guilt. Had the statements of the witnesses been recorded, D perhaps the court could have issued summons to other accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or charges could have been amended/altered/modified under Section 216 Cr.P.C. More so, at that stage, the appellant was not heard as no notice had been issued to him. The trial court E proceeded not only in great haste, but adopted a procedure not known in law, and the judgment and order of the trial court therefore stands vitiated. [Paras 8 and 9) [401-G-H; 402-A-C] • F

1.3. The High Court rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant only on the ground that the appellant neither challenged the order of taking cognizance nor raised any objection at the time of reading over of the charges to the accused. The High Court failed to appreciate that before the statement of the G appellant or any other witness could be recorded, the trial court disposed off the matter on the date when the application itself had been submitted admitting the guilt. Even otherwise if the trial court wanted to entertain any issue of plea bargaining under Chapter XXl-A, inserted H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A w.e.f. 5.7.2006, then too the court was obliged thereunder to put the victim to notice before extending any such benefits that have been given in the present case. The procedure therefore appears to have been clearly violated. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the B case, the appellant had no opportunity to raise any grievance before the appropriate forum. [Para 13) [404- B-E]

1.4 Filing of charge sheet and taking cognizance has nothing to do with the finality of charges, as charges C framed after the cognizance is taken by the court, can be altered/amendedfchanged and any charge can be added at any stage upto the stage of conviction in view of the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. The only legal requirement is that, in case the trial court exercises its D power under Sections 228/251 Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to an opportunity of show-cause/hearing as required under the provisions of Section 217 Cr. P.C. [Para 6) [400-H; 401-A-B] E Umesh Kumar vs. State of A.P. JT 2013 (12) SC 213: 2013 (10) sec 591 - relied on.

2. The trial court had no competence to make any observation having civil consequences so far as the private respondents are concerned. Section 12 of the F Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not take away the effect of conviction for the purpose of service also. [Paras 11 and 13) (402-G; 404-B] State of U.P. vs. Ranjit Singh AIR 1999 SC 1201: 1999 (1) SCR 786; Shankar Dass vs. Union of India and Anr. AIR G 1985 SC 772: 1985 (3) SCR 163; Sushi/ Kumar Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank (2010) 8 SCC 573: 2010 (9) SCR 796; Aitha Chander Rao vs. State of A.P. 1981 Supp SCC 17; Harichand vs. Director of School Education AIR 1998 SC 788: 1998 (1) SCR 143; Divisional Personnel H Officer, Southern Railway and Anr. vs. T.R. Chellappan AIR GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 397 & ORS.