Sikkim High Court
Ishwar Das Darjee vs State Of Sikkim on 4 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ4447
Author: Anup Deb
Bench: Anup Deb
ORDER
Anup Deb, Acting C.J.
1. By filing this revision application, the accused has challenged the Order dated 23-2-1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 208 of 1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North, Gangtok whereby the accused had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.). The accused has also been convicted for offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo further simple imprsonment for six months and the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The ground taken is that the accused was deaf and as such the accused did not understand the intent and purport of the charge.
3. It appears from the order dated 11-2-1998 that the accused made prayer to engage a counsel and the next date was fixed on 23-2-1998. Order dated 11-2-1998 is extracted below :-
11-2-98. Ld. P.P. Shri N.T. Bhutia for the State. Accused on bail in person.
Today is the date fixed for appearance. It is prayed for time to engage counsel. Considered, time allowed.
To 23-2-1998.
Sd/-CJM (E&N).
4. It appears that 23-2-1998 was not fixed for consideration of charge. A charge must contain time, place, person and circumstances of the offence which give the accused an idea of the case which he has to meet. It may not contain elaborate details but there should be no doubt left in the mind of the-accused as to what is the case against him and what allegations he has to meet. If it does not fulfil these conditions, it is not a proper charge. The object in framing a charge is to give notice of the essential facts which the prosecution proposes to establish to bring home the charge to the accused so that he may not be prejudiced in his defence.
5. In view of reasons stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 of the orders passed in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1998, the order passed on 23-2-1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 208 of 1997 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North and he shall modify the charges in the light of discussions made in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1998, if he considers necessary after hearing the accused.
6. In the result, the revision succeeds.
7. Records of the lower Court be sent at once and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North is directed to complete the trial by 31-12-1998.