GHANSHYAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has filed the affidavit today in Court after serving its copy on the learned A. G. A. The said affidavit is taken on record. This revision relates only to the legal question. This question is being decided at the stage of admission itself. The revisionist is the informant of a Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2004, State v. Brij Lal and Ors. , under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I. P. C, P. S. Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur. The charge against the accused were framed under Section 304 I. P. C. The prosecution examined the witnesses including P. W. 9 doctor Govind Prasad and P. W. 3 doctor R. K. Srivastava. The aforesaid two doctors in their deposition before the Court clearly stated that the injuries sustained by the two deceased persons were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution filed an application to amend the charge from Sections 304 to 302 I. P. C. The said prayer has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1 Mirzapur in S. T. No. 210 of 2006.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned order. In my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained on the simple premise that the trial Judge rejected the application because of bar under Section 362 Cr. P. C. Needless to say that an order framing of charge or amendment of charge is not a final order, it does not amount to disposal of case. Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1, Mirzapur probably does not seems to be oblivious of law. So far as final judgments are concerned it is provided that no Court shall altered the judgment or final order disposing of a case. Altercation of a charge or disposed off an application for altering the same in no way is disposal of case nor it is a judgment. The judgment as contemplated under Section 362 Cr. P. C. is referable to the judgment, which provided Chapter XXVII Cr. P. C. The trial Court committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the application of the prosecution for amendment of the charge.