OM PRAKASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 9/04/1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing CR No. 51/97 titled Om Prakash Vs. State on the ground that the revision petition was time barred under the Limitation Act. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner herein against an order 10/02/1997 of the trial court framing charges against the petitioner under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Admittedly the order on charge was passed by the trial court on 14/01/1997 but the charge was framed only on 10/02/1997. According to the averments and prayer in the above mentioned revision petition, the said revision petition was filed against the order dated 10/02/1997. The revision was not against the order dated 14/01/1997. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge counted the period of limitation from 14/01/1997 instead of 10/02/1997 observing that the trial court had not passed any order on 10/02/1997. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 10/02/1997 the trial court only framed the charge in view of the order dated 14.1.1997. It is further stated in the impugned judgment that the petitioner has not challenged the order on charge dated 14.1.1997 at all and thus the petitioner is precluded to challenge the framing of charge.

(3.) The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is obviously wrong and contrary to the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not correct to say that the trial court did not pass any order on 10.2.1997. Charge was framed against the petitioner on 10.2.1997 by passing an order. The action of framing charge can be only by way of passing an order. The earlier order passed by the trial court on 14.1.1997 contained the reasons and justification for framing the charge against the petitioner. But the actual act of framing charge against the petitioner was performed by the Trial Court only on 10.2.1997. The petitioner was entitled to challenge the order dated 10/02/1997 of the trial court framing the charge against him. There is no law which precluded the petitioner from challenging the framing of the charge merely because he had not specifically challenged the order on charge passed on 14/01/1997. The charge was framed against the petitioner only on 10.2.1997 and the order dated 14.1.1997 contained the reasons and justification for framing the charge. The petitioner was not aggrieved until the charge was actually framed against him. Hence notwithstanding the order on charge dated 14.1.1997 the petitioner was entitled to wait and see whether charge would be framed him at all. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in filing the revision petition against the order dated 10.2.1997. If the order dated 10.2.1997 is set aside the order dated 14.1.1997 is of no consequence at all. Moreover, the period of limitation should be counted with reference to the date of the impugned order and not any other date. As per Article 131 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation for filing the revision petition is 90 days. Admittedly, the revision petition C.R. SI of 1997 was filed by the petitioner within 90 days from 10/02/1997 i.e., the dat of the order impugned in the revision petition. Therefore the revision petition was not time barred and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have dismissed the revision petition.