Officer written a letter dated 25.7.2007 to the Government requesting to reframe the charges and the relevant portion reads as follows:
"In as much ... original charges framed against the petitioner were ambiguous and recommended to reframe charges. The Government accepted the recommendation and reframed the charges. Again the government
charges to be defective. When the charges are found to be defective it is open to the State Government to hold fresh inquiry after reframing ... namely the District Development Officer to hold such fresh inquiry after reframing charges, which according to the State Government were not properly framed
March 1,
1950, remitted the proceedings to the learned magistrate,
after reframing the charges which are as under:
"That you, accused No. 1 Ramgopal ... prosecution, it returned the proceedings to the
learned magistrate after reframing the charges, with a
direction to expedite the case.
On receiving the case back
case for discharge at that stage. We accordingly reframed the charges framed by our learned brother, Bhagwati J., and added a fresh charge. No objection ... before us in Court has proceeded with reference to the following charges as reframed and added to by us.
It would be extremely difficult
novo trial would be held against the accused persons
after reframing charges. Before the trial could proceed
further, the newly impleaded accused
dismissing the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. refusing to
reframe the charges is hereby set aside and a direction is issued ... trial
Court/ Special Judge to reframe the charges against the petitioner under
Sections 25 and 25A of the NDPS Act on April
found to be invalid, the case should be sent back for reframing the charges. In this connection he cites the judgment of the Supreme Court ... Kandimalla Subbiah in which the case was sent back for reframing of charges. In that case the charge of conspiracy referred to certain cognizable
injured
witnesses during trial. Complainant could not be examined
after reframing of charges as he was not available.
Complainant had gone to Afghanistan. Hence ... statement
of complainant Heera Lal recorded prior to reframing of
charges could not be read in evidence in view of Section 33 of
(Downloaded
praying to take all appropriate steps to reframe charges
against the accused. By the impugned order dated 18.5.2016, the
trial court rejected the petition ... aside the
impugned order and to direct the trial court to reframe the charges
against the accused
11. On the other hand, the learned Public
back to the Designated Court to separate the two cases and reframe charges if already framed after reconsidering the application of Section 3 of TADA
