UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/accused have come forward with this criminal Revision Case to quash the impugned order passed by the Additional district and Sessions Judge/fast Tract Court Judge No. III , Madurai in Crl. M. P. No. 53 of 2005 in S. C. No. 25 of 2005 in so far as the charge under Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act is concerned.

(2.) THE petitioners instituted the above said proceedings before the Court below to discharge them from the said charge on the ground that there is no material available on record so as to frame the charge under the said provision of law as against the petitioners.

(3.) BUT, on the contrary, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision , RATILAL BHANJI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 1979 s. C. 94), for the position that after framing of the charges (vide) Section 228 cr. P. C. , the Court has no power to discharge the accused. The ratio of the said decision reads as under:- "once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 253 and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of charge if the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in Sections 254 to 258 to a logical end. Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused, and thereafter, he can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under Sections 349 and 562 of the Code of 1898 (which correspond to sections 325 and 360 of the Code of 1973 ). "