High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:188997 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4035 of 2024 Revisionist :- Shiv Tiwari@ Ashutosh Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vidya Kant Rai Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.6.2024 passed by the Special Judge DAA Court No. 3, Kanpur Dehat in Special Sessions Case No. 1263 of 2020 (State vs. Shyamu Bajpai and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 353, 332, 335, 396, 412, 120B, 34 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/4 Explosive Act, P.S. Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar. Vide impugned order trial court dismissed the application under section 129 Kha wherein the prayer has been made to frame fresh charges against accused persons on the ground that initially charges were framed without compliance of section 207 CRPC.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the accused persons are charge sheeted in Special Session Case No.1263 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 353, 332, 333, 396, 412, 120 B I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/4 Explosive Act. The cognizance was taken by the special court on basis of charge sheet submitted by investigating officer in Special Case No. 1263 of 2020. The trial court has framed charges against the revisionist on 13.2.2023 without compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. therefore the revisionist and other co-accused has not signed in the charge framing order. The accused persons had filed Criminal Misc. Application (482) No. 25274 of 2023 with the prayer to set aside the charge framing order wherein this Court has disposed of the said application on 28.7 2023 with the following observations:- "As from the order sheet, it is apparent that there are numerous accused in this case. Some are cooperating with the court in progress of the trial but the others are not cooperating as they have refused to sign the order sheet when the charge was framed though their counsel was heard on the framing of charge. As furnishing copy to the accused is important for fair trial but it is not a judicial exercise rather it is an administrative exercise, however the trial court is directed to ensure whether in the light of the contention raised by the counsel for the applicants the compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. has been made and to that effect he is required to record his satisfaction. If the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. are not complied with and the accused have not been furnished with the copies or necessary papers, they should be furnished with the necessary copies in compliance of the section 207 Cr.P.C.
Decision
With these directions this application stands disposed of." 5. It is further submitted that co-accused Prateek Vaish has filed an Application U/S 482 No. 23639 of 2022 before this Court wherein prayer has been made to quash the order dated 7.5.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2022. The applicant/accused had prayed for the copies of the charge sheet and all the documents including CCTV footage, details of whatsapp messege, mobile calls etc. free of cost. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that as per order sheet dated 20.12.2021 of the Magistrate, the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. has been done and the copies have already been supplied to the applicant while in the present case also the version of the applicant/revisionist is that he is the sole accused in the offence under Section 376, 302/201 and 354 Ka I.P.C. and to contest the case, he needs all these digital documents, which have not been supplied to him by the Magistrate Court. 6. This Court vide order dated 6.8.2022 had allowed the said application with the observation that the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar is directed to supply all the necessary copies including the digital copies as mentioned in para nos. '11 to 15' of the affidavit filed in this regard within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the accused applicant shall bear the expenses of the copies. It is further directed to the court concerned that the charge, if any, be framed against the accused only after supplying the necessary copies. It is also made clear that the contents of the memory card/pen drive must be furnished to the accused in the form of cloned copy of the memory card/pen drive. The court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar is directed to supply all the necessary copies including the digital copies as mentioned in para nos. '11 to 15' of the affidavit filed in this regard within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the accused applicant shall bear the expenses of the copies. It is further directed to the court concerned that the charge, if any, be framed against the accused only after supplying the necessary copies. It is also made clear that the contents of the memory card/pen drive must be furnished to the accused in the form of cloned copy of the memory card/pen drive. 7. It is next submitted that he has also filed supplementary affidavit today wherein an endorsement has been made by counsel for Vinay Tiwari to the effect that CDR, Pen drive, DVD and all electronic evidence have not been received whereas case is fixed for evidence of P.W. 5. Lastly, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned trial court has framed the charges against the revisionist without proper compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The order passed by learned trial court is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable under law. 8. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that charges have already been framed in the case and the evidence of prosecution witness is going on. There is no occasion to direct reframing of charges after supplying of the copies to the accused persons. 9. Perusal of the record it appears that charges have already been framed against the accused persons. This Court on application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by some of the accused persons has already directed to court concerned to supply all the necessary copies including electronic records. The court trial is progressing in the case as per observation made in order dated 24.6.2024. The Cross examination of P.W. 2 was being conducted. No useful purpose will be served by reframing the charges which are already framed against the accused persons. The argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist that even after depositing Rs. 28,800/- copies of electronic reocrds has not been provided to them, is improper. 10. The instant criminal revision is disposed of with the direction that learned trial court ensure supply of pen drive and other electronic records on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the revisionist. So far as charges are concerned, the trial court is at liberty to alter charges under section 216 Cr.P.C. as and when it deem to fit and necessary in the interest of justice. Order Date :- 2.12.2024/SY