RANJIT KR BHATTACHARYA Vs. TILAK DHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, the State of West Bengal, and on perusal of the materials on records, it transpires that though the learned Magistrate frames charge under Section 120B, Sections 467, 419 & 420 of the IPC., he did not give any particular of the persons with whom the accused persons conspired to do some illegal act viz., forgery. Similarly, in the formal charge, the description of valuable document is also not indicated. These particulars are wanting in the charge head No. 1, framed under Section 120B of the IPC.

(2.) But in the subsequent heads of the charge, the gist of the particulars of the offence is indicated. So, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges are not properly framed with regard to the charge-head Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In fact in these heads, materials are sufficient to indicate actually what offence was committed and in which manner.

(3.) As regards charge No. 1, there are certain gaps which are required to be corrected. True it is, as also argued by the learned counsel for the State, that the court in appropriate stage can amend the charge. But the fact remains that when charge has been framed and prosecution witnesses have not been examined as yet, it would be proper to frame charge appropriately before commencement of oral evidence so that there is no allegation of framing of proper charge or prejudice at a subsequent stage. Moreover, amendment of charge after taking of evidence may require further production of the witnesses already examined which will cause unnecessary delay in the proceeding. So, for the sake of shortening the litigation and to save time and cost, charge should be framed in the manner as indicted in the Code of Criminal Procedure after taking into consideration the details of the offence and indicating the same into the formal charge as far as practicable. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, I feel that the court below once again should reconsider and reform the charges as far as practicable before starting of the evidence.