MUNI LAL BELDAR @ MUNILAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question the legality of the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.46 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned court below suo -moto amended the charge from Section 403 I.P.C. to 420 I.P.C. at the fag end of trial when the case was fixed for judgment.

(2.) IN nutshell, the case of the complainant is that both the parties are step brothers and they are equally entitled to a share in their father's property and for this an agreement was executed between this petitioner -accused and the complainant and prior to filing of this complaint petition, one case being P.G. Appeal No.5 of 2007 was instituted and one Title Suit for apportionment of the amount, which was received by his late father from his employer was filed but when this complainant went to enquire from the authority, came to know that the accused -petitioner by deceiving him has already received the entire amount of their father. Hence, the complaint under Section 406,420,120(B) and 323 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IT appears from the record that after examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation, the other inquiry witnesses were examined and being prima facie satisfied the court took cognizance of the offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal code. After appearance of the petitioner, the substance of accusation was explained to him under Section 403 of the I.P.C. and witnesses were examined. After closure of the prosecution evidence, a petition under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") was filed by the complainant for alteration of charge from 403 I.P.C. to 420 I.P.C. on the ground that witnesses examined in court have fully substantiated the complainant's allegation of cheating. A copy of the said petition was given to the other side. The court after hearing the petition filed under Section 216 of the Code rejected the prayer of the complainant by order dated 18.10.2012 on the ground that there is no sufficient material on record to alter the charge already framed under Section 403 I.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of this petitioner under Section 313 of the Code was recorded and after completion of argument, the case was fixed for judgment on 16.09.2013 but on 16.09.2013 the court below recorded the following order: -