Skip to content


K. Shanmugasundara Patter Vs. the State Inspector, Railway Police - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ468
AppellantK. Shanmugasundara Patter
RespondentThe State Inspector, Railway Police
Excerpt:
- .....cripc will apply only to cases wherein charges can be framed, and will not apply to cases tried as summons cases under section 251 of cr.pc4. mr. sengottaiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the public prosecutor, submitted that the state by filing a memo has corrected the charge-sheet as one under section 182, i. p. c, that the court has power under section 216, cr.pc to alter the charge and that under section 221 (2), cr.pc the court, if it finds that the accused has been charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 221, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. according to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Gokulakrishnan, J.

1. This is a petition to call for the entire records in C. C. No 27063 of 1976 on the file of the Sixth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and to quash the same.

2. The above calendar case is tried as summons proceeding by the Sixth Metropolitan Magistrate. Egmore. The accusation therein is that the petitioner herein is a goldsmith and commission agent in gold jewels, that on 20-5-1975, at Madras, he, with intent to cause damage to one Ramchandra Achari and to move the Police for action, laid a complaint before the Police with having committed an offence and also moving the Police to set the law in motion for investigation for an offence punishable Under Section 379, I.P.C. knowing at that time, that there was no just ground for such a complaint, end thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 211, I.P.C.

3. Mr. V. Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the charge Under Section 211, I.P.C. is not correct and that the accusation alleged will constitute a different offence. Inasmuch as no charge has been framed, this being a summons case, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent cannot be allowed to amend the charge-sheet by incorporating a different section instead of Section 211, IPC Mr. Venkataraman further contended that altering of the charge contemplated Under Sections 216 and 221, CrIPC will apply only to cases wherein charges can be framed, and will not apply to cases tried as summons cases Under Section 251 of Cr.PC

4. Mr. Sengottaiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, submitted that the State by filing a memo has corrected the charge-sheet as one Under Section 182, I. P. C, that the Court has power Under Section 216, Cr.PC to alter the charge and that Under Section 221 (2), Cr.PC the Court, if it finds that the accused has been charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 221, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. According to Mr. Sengottaiyan, the accusation levelled against the petitioner herein is not changed except for the sec- tion under which such accusation will come.

5. There is absolutely n0 impediment for the Court to frame charges even in summons cases. The fact that summons cases can be proceeded with even without framing charges, will not in any way take away the powers conferred upon the Court Under Sections 216 and 221 of the Cr.PC even in the matter of summons proceedings. Further, there is absolutely no change in the accusation levelled against the petitioner except for substituting Section 182 instead of Section 211. The accusation taken at the face value and accepted in its entirety makes out a prima facie case. No doubt, it is for the prosecution to substantiate the same by letting in evidence. There is neither abuse of the process of the Court nor any legal bar for the prosecution to continue the proceedings.

6. Thus, by merely looking at the accusation a prima facie offence has been made out, and hence the question of quashing the proceedings will not arise in this case.

7. In these circumstances this petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //