KONERU SURESH BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is sought to be filed by the second accused against order, dated 30.6.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Family Court, Eluru, in Crl. MP No.185 of 2010 in SC No.162 of 2010 by which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by A2 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. refusing to discharge him.

(2.) A2 is accused of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C. After committal of the case and after framing of charges, the lower Court issued schedule for trial of the case. At this stage, A2 filed the present petition in the lower Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging him and to reconsider the charge. The lower Court negatived request of A2 on the ground that discharge petition is not maintainable after framing of charges.

(3.) The petitioner's Counsel placed reliance on Baburao Hari Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Crl. LJ 584, of the Bombay High Court and contended that the accused is entitled to ask for discharge from the prosecution at any stage and there is no time limit for filing such an application. This Bombay High Court decision is contrary to scheme of trial before a Court of Session prescribed in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. As per Section 226 Cr.P.C, after the accused appears or is brought to the Sessions Court, the prosecutor shall open the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove guilt of the accused. Thereafter, Section 227 Cr.P.C. comes into operation. As per the said provision, upon consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted with it and after hearing submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Sessions Judge, if considers that there is no sufficient case for proceeding against the accused, shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. If after such consideration and hearing as contained in Section 227 Cr.P.C, the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, shall frame charge in writing against the accused and it shall be read over and explained to the accused who will be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. The said provision is contained in Section 228 Cr.P.C. Subsequent procedure after Section 228 Cr.P.C. is relating to conviction, prosecution evidence, acquittal, examination of the accused during the course of further trial. When once charges are framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and they were read over and explained to the accused and when the Sessions Judge records plea of the accused regarding his guilt, thereafter the clock cannot be setback. The question of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C arises only before framing of charge by the Sessions Court and not after framing of charge. After framing of charge, it is the duty of the Sessions Court to proceed with the trial and find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty and consequently pass order of conviction or order of acquittal accordingly. After framing of charge, discharge of the accused from the case does not arise at all. Having regard to the above scheme provided in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C, this Court is of the opinion that the above Bombay decision is not in accordance with the scheme of trial provided under Cr.P.C.