Court No. - 18 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3150 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mohd. Shafi & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Khaleeq Ahmad Khan Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and
perused the material on record.
By means of this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. the
petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court with a
prayer to quash the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 254 of
2005 (State vs. Mohd. Shafi and others), whereby the learned trial
Court in exercise of power under section 216 Cr.P.C. made
alteration in the charge and changed the date of incident from
23.2.2001 as mentioned in the charge to 22.2.2001.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
according to the averments of the F.I.R. as well as the evidence
collected by the Investigating Officer the date of incident was
23.2.2001 and accordingly the charge was framed showing the
date of incident as 23.2.2001. However, after the examination of
nine prosecution witnesses during the trial, the Public Prosecutor
moved application for alteration of the date of occurrence in the
charge on the ground that from the statement of the witnesses the
incident appears to have committed on 22.2.2001, whereas none
of the witnesses examined before the trial Court has stated about
the date of incident as 22.2.2001.
The charge in a criminal trial is framed under section 228 or 240
Cr.P.C., as the case may be, on the basis of record of the case,
including the police report and the documents sent with it, and the
evidence proposed to be produced during the trial. A charge so
framed can not be altered on the basis of the evidence appeared
during the trial. The impugned order of the trial Court is therefore
suffering with illegality and it is a fit case for exercise of inherent
powers by this Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the
Court.
The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is
accordingly quashed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2010
Muk