BABUBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to these two applications in revision before this Court broadly stated are that one Hasumati's marriage was settled with accused No. 1 on or about 13-12-65 at Ahmedabad and a writing in that respect came to be executed by him in favour of Hasumati In that writing in addition to certain terms agreed to between them It was stated that the accused No. 1 was not married and that in those circumstances their marriage took place on the next day. She then lived with her husband-accused No. 1 and had even sexual intercourse. Sometime after Hasumati came to know that her husband was already married before and that his first wife was living. That led her to lodge a complaint before the police in respect of offences under secs. 420-117 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to have abetted the commission of the said offence as it was through them that her marriage with accused No. 1 was brought about. After finishing the investigation of the case the charge-sheet against all the three accused was sent up to the Court of the City Magistrate Ahmedabad.

(2.) On the basis of the police papers in the case the learned Magistrate at first framed a charge as per Ex. 2 on 25-8-65 against all the three accused. By that while accused No. 1 was alleged to have deceived or dishonestly induced the complainant Hasumati to marry with him by saying that he was an unmarried person so as to be liable under sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code the two other accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to have abetted accused No. 1 in committing the said offence so as to be liable for an offence under sec. 417 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. To that the accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) Thereafter the evidence of Hasumati came to be recorded in the case. On the strength of her evidence the learned Police Prosecutor in charge of the case before the trial Court presented a report Ex. 9 requesting the Court to amend the charge urging that the charge for offences under secs. 493 494 495 496 against accused No. 1 and for offences under secs. 493 494 495 496 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 2 and 3 should be framed. After hearing the learned advocate for the accused the learned Magistrate framed the charge at Ex. 10 for those offences accordingly. Since some of those offences under secs. 493 495 and 496 were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate committed all the accused to stand their trial in respect of all the offences before the Court of City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad under sec. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Though no order is passed with regard to the earlier charge under sec. 417 and sec. 417 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be taken that the accused were discharged in that respect. In fact while framing the charge the earlier charge was allowed to have been given a go-by. Feeling aggrieved by that order of commitment passed on 29-12-1966 by Mr. B. J. Shelat City Magistrate 4 Court Ahmedabad while accused No. 1 has filed Application No. 31/67 in revision the other two accused have filed an application No. 44/67 in revision before this Court.