ROSARIO D SOUZA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/original accused, in Sessions Case No.5 of 2004, has filed the present revision application assailing the correctness of the Order passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, dated 1st March 2004, by which the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, directed the framing of charge against the applicant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 307, 302, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is not necessary to advert to the facts as emerge from the charge-sheet in order to decide this revision. Suffice it to say that the applicant alongwith other 21 accused was alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. A charge-sheet against all the accused came to be laid in the Court of the Magistrate and which was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Since the applicant was absconding, the applicant was not put on trial alongwith the other accused. The trial proceeded against the 21 accused and the learned trial Court convicted two accused and acquitted 19 accused. The two accused filed a Criminal Appeal in this Court, which was allowed and the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial Court was quashed and set aside. Subsequent to this the applicant was arrested and meanwhile a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the applicant/accused. After committal, when the case was before the trial Court for framing charge, on behalf of the applicant a plea of discharge was made, which was negatived by the Court and by the Order impugned in the Criminal Revision Application the trial Court directed framing of charge for the aforestated offences.

(3.) THE learned trial Court while repelling the plea of the accused for discharge has held that the present accused goes back to the position as it was when the charge-sheet was initially filed as against the other accused persons showing the present accused as absconding and, therefore, a charge is bound to be framed by 'forgetting' the Judgments of acquittal of other accused. The learned Judge probably meant to use the expression 'ignoring' instead of 'forgetting'.