MOHD SHAKEEL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No.41/2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet filed in Cr.No. 207/ 2001 by the Saifabad Police. The petitioner states that it is alleged against him that on a suspicion that he abducted Kum. D.Rajani, who was appearing for 10th Class annual examination on 28-3-2001, while she was leaving examination center in an Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-9U-0338 along with him, and the father of D,Rajani one D.Ashok gave a complaint on 28-3-2001 to the Saifabad police against the petitioner. On receipt bf the complaint the Saifabad Police registered a case in Cr.No.207/2001 under Section 366-A, IPC. On 5-4-2001, the brother of the petitioner-accused produced the accused before the Saifabad Police and the accused was arrested and produced before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on the charge of the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 366-A, IPC. It was, however, stated that during the course of the framing of the charge against the petitioner the learned Magistrate passed an order on 26-9-2002 changing the Section of offence from Section 366-A, IPC to Section 363 IPC and posted S.C. No.41/2002 on 29-11-2002 for trial. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the present petition.

(2.) Sri Govind Reddy Mandadi, learned Counsel representing the petitioner-accused had taken me through the docket order, which is questioned in the present criminal petition and had submitted that the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad having accepted the content on that the ingredients of Section 366-A, IPC are not attracted, had totally erred in altering the charge or framing the charge for the offence under Section 363, IPC. The learned Counsel had gone a step further and had taken me through the factual aspects and had further contended that even otherwise neither the ingredients of Section 361, IPC nor Section 363, IPC are attracted, if the facts of the case are carefully scrutinized. While making elaborate submissions the learned Counsel also pointed out that the object of the criminal law is that when framing a charge against a person alleged to have committed an offence the presence of mens rea should also be looked into and he tried to convince the Court that inasmuch as none of the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 361, IPC and Section 363, IPC had been made out, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention the learned Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Queens Bench Division (Divisional Court) in 'B' v. the Director of Public Prosecutions. (1998) EWHC Admn 816 (31st July. 1998) and on the opinion of the House of Lords in the same cause reported in (2000) 1 All ER 833 (23rd February, 2000).

(3.) On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri Khadeer, had taken me through the material on record and also the impugned order and had submitted that the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case had framed the correct charges under Section 363, IPC in view of the definition for the offence defined in Section 363, IPC and had recorded the reasons for the same and hence, inasmuch as this was done at the earliest point of time, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner-accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had stated that several other aspects which had been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and which may have to be gone into at the time of regular trial need not be discussed at this stage. He has drawn my attention to Sections 211 and 216, Cr.PC and had contended that the Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. That being so it cannot be said that the impugned order is not sustainable. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of his contentions relied upon Thakur Shah v. Emperor (AIR (30) 1943 P.C 192) and Kantilal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1970 SC 3.59).