C.R.R. 1848 of 2006
In the matter of:- Pappu Burnwal anr.
None appears for the parties. No accommodation is
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.)