JAYANTILAL VRAJLAL BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Thakore the learned Advocate for the appellant firstly contended that the order of conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under sec. 325 carrot be sustained. The reason advanced was that originally the charge framed against the appellant after looking into the police-papers was for the offence punishable under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code though the charge sheet was sent by the police against the appellant to the Court for the offences under secs. 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. This was a case tried as a warrant case. Charge having been framed only for the offence punishable under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code by a necessary implication the appellant was discharged for the offence punishable under sec. 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It was a case of an implied discharge and the discharge order without having been set aside by the Superior Court in its revisional jurisdiction the Magistrate has no power to alter or add to the charge which would result in review of his own previous order. In support of this argument of his he invited my attention to the case of Appabhai Hemabhai v. The State of Gujarat III Gujarat Law Reporter 14. A division Bench of this High Court has observed therein as under:-

(2.) Sec. 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code is material for our purposes. It runs as under :-

(3.) In the case of In re Satyanarayana Reddi A.I.R (34) 1947 Madras 174 the Madras High Court had to deal with a similar question:- Yahya Ali J. has made the following pertinent observations :-