- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned for the revisionists and the learned AGA.
(2.) I have perused the order dated 16-1-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffarnagar in S. T. No. 1031 of 1997. In sessions trial, the trial Judge heard the accused at the stage of Sections 227, 228 Cr. P. C. and after hearing the accused came to the opinion that the prima facie offence triable by Court of Session is made out and consequently it framed the charge against the accused under Section 228 (b) Cr. P. C. Subsequently, under Section 230 Cr. P. C. , the trial Judge fixed the evidence for the prosecution and started regarding the same and in the trial five witnesses for the prosecution were examined by the prosecution. After the said stage, the accused moved an application for discharge under Sections 227, 228 Cr. P. C. , which has been rejected by the impugned order. After hearing the Counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA, I am of the view that once the stage of Sections 227, 228, 229 Cr. P. C. was over the matter cannot be reverted back to the stage of Sections 227, 228 Cr. P. C. as the accused cannot be heard on the question of framing of charge. The law does not permits such eventuality. After the stage of Sections 228 and 229 Cr. P. C. is over then the accused can claim discharge only under Section 232 Cr. P. C. There is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to re-hear the accused on the question of framing of charge again and again. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists, therefore, is unsanctified by the provision of the Code and is hereby rejected. Under the scheme of trial, the accused has got a right to get the charge altered at any stage of the trial but this does not mean that he should be reheard on the question of framing of charge again and again.
(3.) THE impugned order dated 16-1-2007 does not suffer from any infirmity of law. This revision is meritless and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;