AKSHAY MANOJ JAISINGHANI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

(2.) This Writ Petition is preferred against framing of Charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide order dated 6 th July 2017 passed in Sessions Case No.440 of 2017.

(3.) The main grievance of the Petitioner is that, the learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the Petitioner without hearing him and thereby in non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C. To substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out to the copy of the Roznama of the Sessions Case No.440 of 2017 dated 6 th July 2017, which is produced at page No.66 to this Petition, to show that, on that day, without the learned A.P.P. or learned counsel for the Accused being heard, the charge is directly framed against the Petitioner vide Exhibit-C. It is submitted that, Roznama does not disclose that either learned A.P.P. or learned counsel for the Petitioner were heard before framing of charge.