(1.) THE point that arises in this revision petition is whether a Sessions Judge has got power to alter or add to the charge framed by the Committal Court before the commencement of the trial.
(2.) WHAT the petitioner did in this case was, he filed an application before the additional Sessions Judge, Madras requesting him to alter a charge under Section 307 I. P. C. under which the committal was made, to one under Section 326 I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to drop a charge under Section 307 I. P. C. and frame a charge under Section 326 instead. He cited a case in Kantilal Keshavlal v. Prabhed-chandra, 1964-2 Crl LJ 87 (Guj)and also a decision of the Supreme Court in Ban-wari v. State of U. P. , as far as I could see there is no reference to either Section 226 or Section 227 Crl. P. C. in the Supreme Court decision In. the earlier decision a single Judee of the Orissa (Gujarat?) High Court held that altering a charge under section 307 I. P. C, to one under Section 324 I. P. C. would amount to quashing, of the earlier charge and that that could, be done only by a High Court under S. 561 crl. P. C. and that a Sessions Judge, before the commencement of the trial, could not alter the charge. With great respect I am unable to agree with the wide observations made by the learned Judges of the Orissa (Gujarat?), High Court. Section 226 Crl. P. C. reads thus--"when any person is committed for trial without a charge, or with an imperfect or erroneous charge, the court, or, in the case of a high Court, the clerk of the State may frame a charge or add to or otherwise alter the charge, as the case may be, having regard to the rules contained in this Code as to the form of charges". Section 227 Crl. P. C. is as follows-
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in In re Subburatnam, AIR 1949 Mad 663 in dealing with the scope pf Section 226 and Section 227 Cr. P. C. observed in the following words, with which I am bound and respectfully agree-