Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shafi & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Another on 11 August, 2010
Author: S.N.H. Zaidi
Bench: S.N.H. Zaidi
Court No. - 18 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3150 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mohd. Shafi & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Khaleeq Ahmad Khan Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
By means of this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2005 (State vs. Mohd. Shafi and others), whereby the learned trial Court in exercise of power under section 216 Cr.P.C. made alteration in the charge and changed the date of incident from 23.2.2001 as mentioned in the charge to 22.2.2001.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to the averments of the F.I.R. as well as the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer the date of incident was 23.2.2001 and accordingly the charge was framed showing the date of incident as 23.2.2001. However, after the examination of nine prosecution witnesses during the trial, the Public Prosecutor moved application for alteration of the date of occurrence in the charge on the ground that from the statement of the witnesses the incident appears to have committed on 22.2.2001, whereas none of the witnesses examined before the trial Court has stated about the date of incident as 22.2.2001.
The charge in a criminal trial is framed under section 228 or 240 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, on the basis of record of the case, including the police report and the documents sent with it, and the evidence proposed to be produced during the trial. A charge so framed can not be altered on the basis of the evidence appeared during the trial. The impugned order of the trial Court is therefore suffering with illegality and it is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers by this Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is accordingly quashed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2010 Muk