BALAM GULAB PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the revision petitioner/ original accused is challenging the order dated 01/04/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on an application for discharge moved by the revision petitioner under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for the sake of brevity). By the impugned order dated 01/04/2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/original accused by holding that the application is devoid of merit as the charge has already been framed.

(2.) Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(3.) Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner/accused. He argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, had hurriedly framed the charge and rejected the application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/accused. The learned Advocate vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has given a complete gobye to the provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Crimial P.C. No hearing on the point of framing of charge was conducted and straightway the charge came to be framed. By placing reliance on paragraph 8 from the Judgment of the Honourable Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Vikrant Rajkumar Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri.) 1752, the learned Advocate argued that it is mandatory to comply provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Crimial P.C. prior to framing of the charge in order to ascertain whether there is enough material to frame the charge.