- (1.) The petitioner in the instant criminal revisional application challenged the charge under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act framed against them in connection with the Sessions Case No. 53/06 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Darjeeling.
(2.) Mr. Sekhar Basu, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that the impugned charge is not in accordance with law and wholly defective. According to him that the impugned charge does not fulfil the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as well the provisions of Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that the requirement of Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not satisfied. Mr. Basu vehemently urged that the impugned charge has not given the accused sufficient notice of the matter and by the charge so framed the accused persons have not been made aware about the prosecution case against them and thereby they have been denied the opportunity to properly and effectively defend them in the trial and to prove their innocence. Thus, he prays that the impugned charge be quashed.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the charge does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality and according to him the minor defects, if any, occasioned in the said charge would not in any way prejudice the accused persons. He further submitted if the Court so feels may interfere with the impugned charge with a direction to the Trial Court to rectify the alleged defects, if any, and to frame fresh charge.;