SHYAMJI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-359
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 30,2006

Shyamji And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) A charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohi-bition Act has been framed against the five accused applicants and they have come to this Court under Section 482, Cr PC and their contention is that the Sessions Judge should have framed a charge under Section 306, IPC.
(2.) I have heard Sri K.K. Mishra Advocate for the applicants and Sri R.D. Yadav Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 State.
(3.) Previously also the appli-cants had come to this Court against a charge under Section 304-B, IPC being framed against them, and the Hon'ble Judge, who had heard the case, on 31.8.2006, passed the following order : "After perusal of the records and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists, it appears that both the parties were heard by the trial Court at the stage of framing the charge under Section 227, Cr PC. According to Section 227, Cr PC there should be sufficient ground to presume that the accused had committed the alleged offence. Therefore, it was necessary for the trial Court to give a specific finding that on what basis the prima facie case was made out. In this regard, the statements of prosecution witnesses, the post-mortem report and other material, available on record, have to be considered by the trial Court. But, after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the same has not been passed in the light of Section 227, Cr PC. It has been mentioned in it that new evidence has to come and some facts may come at the time of recording the evidence. These are not the ground to be considered at the time of framing the charge. Therefore, the Court below has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order which is liable to be aside in this revision. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.7.2006 is hereby set aside. It is directed to the trial Court to pass an order again according to Section 227, Cr PC and the observations made in the body of this order. Sd/- Shiv Shanker, J. 31.8.2006";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.