TAMILVANAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the trial Court. By the said order, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner under Sec. 120(b) IPC read with Sec. 302 read with 109 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that between January 1973 to 8th February 1973, the accused have entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, they have entered into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons in Nagarasampatti Village on 08.02.1973 at about 19.15 hours with an intention to cause the murder of deceased H.C. Ramalingam Chettiar and accordingly they have caused the murder of the deceased H.C. Ramalingam Chettiar. The charge against the petitioner is that he abetted the crime by supplying deadly weapons which was used in the commission of offence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court erred in not complying with the provisions contemplated under Sec. 205 of Cr.P.C. As contemplated under Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. the trial Court is expected to hear the counsel for the accused or the accused on the question of framing charges. According to the counsel for the petitioner, on 22.07.2015, on behalf of the petitioner, petition in Crl.M.P. No. 84 of 2015 in S.C. No. 109 of 2010 has been filed under Sec. 317 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner was ill. Consequently, another petition in Crl.M.P. No. 85 of 2015 in S.C. No. 109 of 2010 was filed praying to condone the absence of the petitioner on health grounds and prayed to adjourn the case from 22.07.2015 to any other date as the petitioner was not well, he could not contest the case and to raise his defence. However, the trial court, without considering the reasons assigned on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed both the petitions on 10.07.2015. On the same day viz., 10.07.2015, the trial court has framed the charges against the petitioner and it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The trial court has failed to follow the procedures contemplated under Sec. 226 and 227 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order dated 10.07.2015.