Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The charge sheet stated that the petitioner committed the offence as a consequence of the chiding given to him by the District Munsif in the discharge-of his official duty and was punishable under Sections 332 and 355 Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, however, framed a charge on 6-10-1958 against the petitioner only under Section 355. Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Public Prosecutor applied to the Magistrate on 15-10-1958 to add a charge under Section 822, Indian Penal Code, but the Magistrate dismissed the application. Thereupon the Circle Inspector filed C.R.P. No. 13 of 1958 under Sections 435 and 436 Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge, Chittoor for setting aside the order of Implied discharge made on 6-10-1958 and for directing that an additional charge under Section 332. Indian Penal Code be framed. On that petition, the learned Sessions Judge made the order mentioned above.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that it would be wrong to bisect the Magistrate's proceedings of 6-10-1958 and to interfere with the implied discharge in respect of the offence under Section 332, I. P. C., while maintaining the charge in respect of the offence under Section 355, I. P. C. The decision in Mohammad Ibrahim Sahib v. Bazhul Asu Habu, was cited in this connection. But I am unable to see how it has any bearing, because there the evidence, which was held to have been rightly disbelieved, was the only evidence available in respect of both the charges. Here there is no bisection, in the sense of any inconsistency between the charge under Section 355, I. P. C. already framed by the Magistrate and the framing of an additional charge under Section 322, I. P. C. It was also urged that there is no need for any interference, because the Magistrate can frame an additional charge under Section 32, I. P. C. if he finds, in the course of the trial, that there is sufficient evidence to support it Apart from its being dilatory, I see no force in this contention, because the evidence which exclusively relates to the charge under Section 332, I. P. C. would he naturally excluded as being irrelevant at the trial of the charge under Section 355, I. P. C. alone.

11. In the result, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and there will be an order by this Court for the retrial of the petitioner on a charge to be framed under Section 332 I. P. C. besides the charge already framed under Section 355, I. P. C. The trial will he held by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction to whom the case will be transferred by the District Magistrate.

12. Before leaving the case, I may also observe that Section 436, Cr. P. C. does not authorise the Sessions Judge to direct further inquiry by a particular Magistrate. The learned Sessions fudge ought to have directed the District Magistrate by himself or by a Subordinate Magistrate to make the further inquiry, leaving the Dist. Magistrate a discretion as to the selection of the Magistrate. See Ramaswami Thevar v. M. Subban, AIR 1930 Mad 983.