SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pappu Burnwal & Anr vs Unknown on 23 July, 2019


13 23.7.2019

A.B. Ct.No.34

C.R.R. 1848 of 2006

In the matter of:- Pappu Burnwal anr.

None appears for the parties. No accommodation is

sought for.

The revisional application has been preferred against

the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Durgapur in Sessions

Trial no. 14 of 2004.

I find that the learned Trial Court categorically

recorded that in course of argument it was noticed by the

Court that the charges were framed against accused

persons for the offence under Sectionsection 498A/Section325/Section307 of the

Indian Penal Code but so far as the charge that was framed

under Sectionsection 498A of the Indian Penal Code the same was

to some extent defective in nature. The learned Court

assigned the reason while coming to his conclusion that

charges were already framed on 19.3.2004 under Sectionsection

498A and it is only the language used during framing of

charge which require amendment and alteration.

As it is a settled provision of law that charges can be

amended or altered at any stage of the proceedings provided

it do not prejudice any of the parties. I find that the learned

Court committed no illegality in amending the language for

framing of charge under Sectionsection 498A of the Indian Penal

Code. It is also reflected from the same order that the

learned Court after amending such charge granted

opportunity to both the parties to adduce fresh witnesses if


The amendment by which the learned Court granted

sufficient opportunity to the parties itself reflects that there

was no scope of any miscarriage of justice. As such I do not

find any illegality in the impugned order.

As such the revisional application being C.R.R. 1848

of 2006 is dismissed.

I find from the records of this case that by an order

dated 21.11.2006 this Court was pleased to fix the

revisional application on 12.12.2006 and extended the

interim order till that date. As the revisional application is

dismissed any interim order which has effected the progress

of the Sessions Trial is hereby vacated. I also direct the

learned Trial Court to conclude the case within a period of

90 days if the same has not already been concluded.

With the aforesaid observations C.R.R. 1848 of 2006

is disposed of.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation