KAUSHIKBHAI KRUSHNKANT RAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Special Criminal Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioners herein-original accused for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28-9-2007/4-10-2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad below application Exh. 135 in Sessions case No. 252 of 1998, by which, the learned trial Court has granted the application submitted by the prosecution for amending charge by correcting date of offence as 13-3-1998 instead of 12-3-1998.

(2.) ALL the petitioners-original accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Secs. 395, 332, 186, 294 (b), 506 (2) and 201 of the indian Penal Code with respect to F. I. R.- complaint being C. R. No. I-135 of 1998 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station for the offences alleged to have been committed on 13-3-1998. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad committed the case to the District and Sessions Court, Nadiad on 28th September, 1998, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No. 252 of 1998. The learned sessions Court framed the charge against the present petitioners vide Exh. 6 on 26th December, 2002. That thereafter, the trial commenced and the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. That during the trial, it came to the knowledge of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the trial that at the relevant time of framing the charge, by mistake and through oversight, the date of offence was mentioned as 12-3-1998 instead of 13-3-1998 and therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application Exh. 135 before the learned Sessions Court for amending the charge and the date of offence/incident mentioned in the charge i. e. 12-3-1998 may be amended as 13-3-1998. The said application was opposed by the petitioners-original accused, and thereafter, by impugned order dated 28-9-2007, learned Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast track Court, Nadiad allowed the said application and ordered to amend the charge by correcting the date of incident as 13-3-1998 instead of 12-3-1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by learned trial Court, in order to amend the charge by correcting the date of, offence/incident as 13-3-1998 in place of 12-3-1998, the present petitioners have preferred the present application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. V. M. Pancholi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-original accused has vehemently submitted that learned trial Court ought not to have ordered to amend the charge by correcting the date of offence at the fag-end of the trial and at a belated stage, more particularly when the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and accused led the evidence and cross-examined the witnesses considering the date of incident as 12-3-1998 as per the charge framed. It is submitted that the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses on considering the date of incident as 13-3-1998 has been taken away. It is submitted that even learned Additional Public Prosecutor at the relevant time when the charge was framed at Exh. 6 did not take any proper care and trial came to be proceeded further considering the date of incident/offence as 12-3-1998 as mentioned in the charge framed by learned trial Court, and therefore, such an application ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court at the fag-end of the trial. It is further submitted that after the petitioners disclosed their defences and now with a view to rectify mistake, the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the application submitted by the prosecution for amending the date mentioned in the charge framed against the petitioners. It is submitted that it is nothing, but afterthought on the part of the learned Additional Public prosecutor with a clear intention that the petitioners can be convicted. By making above submission, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order.