# Ankita Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1082
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1576 of 2020
- **Bench:** Chawan Prakash
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankita-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52615
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Whether, in view of the bar contained in Section
362 Cr.P.C., the High Court could recall or
restore its earlier order, by which the criminal
revision had been finally decided on merits, on
the ground that the opposite party no. 2 was
11 All. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1083
not heard due to the non-appearance of his
counsel on the date of hearing.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.362
- Recall / restoration of order - Review
of criminal judgment - Bar under Section
362 - Inherent powers - Functus officio
-
Non-appearance
of
counsel
-
Opportunity
of
hearing
-
Recall
application rejected.

Held:
Section 362 Cr.P.C. places an express and
absolute bar on a criminal court from altering or
reviewing its judgment or final order once it has
been signed, except for correction of clerical or
arithmetical errors. The provision embodies the
principle
that,
after
pronouncement
of
judgment, the Court becomes functus officio.
[Paras 7-8, 18]

A recall application seeking rehearing of the
case on merits, on the ground that a party was
not heard due to absence of counsel, would
amount in substance to a review of the earlier
judgment, which is impermissible in criminal
jurisdiction in absence of a specific statutory
provision authorising such review. [Paras 8-9,
18]

The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to
circumvent the statutory prohibition contained in
Section 362 Cr.P.C.. The saving clause in Section
362 applies only where the Code or any other
law expressly provides for alteration or review,
and does not preserve inherent powers for that
purpose. [Paras 12, 14-16]

It was noted from the record that sufficient
opportunities had been granted to opposite
party no. 2 to address arguments on earlier
dates, and even on the date when the revision
was decided, his counsel remained absent. Mere
non-appearance of counsel on the date of
hearing does not furnish a ground for recall of a
final order. [Paras 19-20]

In view of the settled legal position laid down by
the Supreme Court and the clear mandate of
Section 362 Cr.P.C., the Court declined to recall
its
earlier
order
dated
27.01.2021.
The
recall/restoration application was accordingly
rejected. [Paras 20-21]

Revision application rejected. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala
and Others, 1979 SCR (1) 1114 - relied
on; Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1994 SC 1544 - relied on; Naresh
and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1981 SC 1385 - relied on; Smt. Sooraj
Devi v. Pyare Lal and Another, AIR 1981
SC 736 - relied on; Hari Singh Mann v.
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others,
(2001) 1 SCC 169 - relied on; State
(rep. by D.S.P.) v. K.V. Rajendran and
Others, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of
2008 (decided on 02.09.2008) - relied
on; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 -
relied on; Vishnu Agarwal v. State of
U.P. and Another, Criminal Appeal No.
1323 of 2004 (decided on 23.02.2011)
- relied on; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of
West Bengal and Others, 2009 AIR SCW
2784 - relied on; Central Bureau of
Investigation v. State of U.P. and
Others, Criminal Revision No. 11 of
2009
(decided
on
20.11.2015)
-
referred to; Smt. Santosh Kumari and
Others v. State of U.P. and Another,
Application under Section 482 No. 1058
of 2019 (decided on 09.11.2021) -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Recall of order; Review of criminal judgment;
Functus
officio;
Inherent
powers;
Nonappearance of counsel; Bar on alteration or
review.

Case Arising From
Recall/Restoration Application No. 4 of 2021,
arising out of judgment and order dated
27.01.2021 passed by the High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 1576 of 2020, which arose from
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2020 decided by the
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Court
No.
2,
Fatehpur, in Case Crime No. 394 of 2017, under
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS

## Text

1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trial court at the time of appreciation of
evidence, as learned counsel for the
revisionist has confined his argument on
the legal-questions, that neither prosecution
nor accused is having any right of law to
file an application under Section 216
Cr.P.C. It is only the concerned trial court,
which is having the force of law. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in
Thakur Ram and others vs. State of
Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 911; that
the power available under Section 216
Cr.P.C. can be exercised only by the court
on its own and no party has any right to
seek for passing any order under the said
provisions.

12. Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the
court to alter or add any charge at any time
before the judgment is pronounced. It may
be that if there was an omission in the
framing of the charge and if it comes to the
knowledge of the court, the power is
always vested in the court, as provided
under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to either alter or
add the charge and that such power is
available with the court at any time before
the judgment is pronounced. It is an
enabling provision for the court to exercise
its power under certain contingencies,
which comes to its notice or brought to its
notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the
knowledge of the court that a necessity has
arisen for the charge to be altered or added,
it may do so on its own and no order need
be passed for that purpose. After such
alteration or addition, when the final
decision is rendered, it will be open for the
parties to work-out their remedies, in
accordance with law.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
on August 12, 2014 in Criminal Appeal
No.1709 of 2014 titled P.Kartikalakshmi
vs. Sri Ganesh and another that the power
of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is
exclusively confined with the court as an
enabling provision for the purpose of
alteration or addition of any charge at any
time
before
pronouncement
of
the
judgment, we make it clear that no party,
neither de facto complainant nor the
accused or for that matter, the prosecution
has any vested right to seek any addition or
alteration of charge, because it is not
provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. If such
a course to be adopted by the parties, is
allowed, then it will be well nigh
impossible for the criminal court to
conclude its proceedings and the concept of
speedy trial will get jeopardized.

14. Hence the impugned order dated
21.2.2025 is hereby set aside.

15. The Criminal Revision is allowed,
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1082
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1576 of 2020

Ankita Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in view of the bar contained in Section
362 Cr.P.C., the High Court could recall or
restore its earlier order, by which the criminal
revision had been finally decided on merits, on
the ground that the opposite party no. 2 was
11 All. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1083
not heard due to the non-appearance of his
counsel on the date of hearing.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.362
- Recall / restoration of order - Review
of criminal judgment - Bar under Section
362 - Inherent powers - Functus officio
-
Non-appearance
of
counsel
-
Opportunity
of
hearing
-
Recall
application rejected.

Held:
Section 362 Cr.P.C. places an express and
absolute bar on a criminal court from altering or
reviewing its judgment or final order once it has
been signed, except for correction of clerical or
arithmetical errors. The provision embodies the
principle
that,
after
pronouncement
of
judgment, the Court becomes functus officio.
[Paras 7-8, 18]

A recall application seeking rehearing of the
case on merits, on the ground that a party was
not heard due to absence of counsel, would
amount in substance to a review of the earlier
judgment, which is impermissible in criminal
jurisdiction in absence of a specific statutory
provision authorising such review. [Paras 8-9,
18]

The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to
circumvent the statutory prohibition contained in
Section 362 Cr.P.C.. The saving clause in Section
362 applies only where the Code or any other
law expressly provides for alteration or review,
and does not preserve inherent powers for that
purpose. [Paras 12, 14-16]

It was noted from the record that sufficient
opportunities had been granted to opposite
party no. 2 to address arguments on earlier
dates, and even on the date when the revision
was decided, his counsel remained absent. Mere
non-appearance of counsel on the date of
hearing does not furnish a ground for recall of a
final order. [Paras 19-20]

In view of the settled legal position laid down by
the Supreme Court and the clear mandate of
Section 362 Cr.P.C., the Court declined to recall
its
earlier
order
dated
27.01.2021.
The
recall/restoration application was accordingly
rejected. [Paras 20-21]

Revision application rejected. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala
and Others, 1979 SCR (1) 1114 - relied
on; Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1994 SC 1544 - relied on; Naresh
and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1981 SC 1385 - relied on; Smt. Sooraj
Devi v. Pyare Lal and Another, AIR 1981
SC 736 - relied on; Hari Singh Mann v.
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others,
(2001) 1 SCC 169 - relied on; State
(rep. by D.S.P.) v. K.V. Rajendran and
Others, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of
2008 (decided on 02.09.2008) - relied
on; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 -
relied on; Vishnu Agarwal v. State of
U.P. and Another, Criminal Appeal No.
1323 of 2004 (decided on 23.02.2011)
- relied on; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of
West Bengal and Others, 2009 AIR SCW
2784 - relied on; Central Bureau of
Investigation v. State of U.P. and
Others, Criminal Revision No. 11 of
2009
(decided
on
20.11.2015)
-
referred to; Smt. Santosh Kumari and
Others v. State of U.P. and Another,
Application under Section 482 No. 1058
of 2019 (decided on 09.11.2021) -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Recall of order; Review of criminal judgment;
Functus
officio;
Inherent
powers;
Nonappearance of counsel; Bar on alteration or
review.

Case Arising From
Recall/Restoration Application No. 4 of 2021,
arising out of judgment and order dated
27.01.2021 passed by the High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 1576 of 2020, which arose from
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2020 decided by the
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Court
No.
2,
Fatehpur, in Case Crime No. 394 of 2017, under
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Khaga,
District Fatehpur.

Appearance for Parties
For the State : Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chawan Prakash, J.)

(Recall/Restoration Application No.
4 of 2021)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State
and learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2.

2. By means of this application, the
applicant/opposite party no. 2 has prayed
for recall of the order dated 27.01.2021
passed by this Court in Criminal Revision
No. 1576 of 2020.

3. Present criminal revision was filed
by Smt. Ankita Singh against the order
dated 27.07.2020 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2,
Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of
2020 (Ashish Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case Crime No. 394 of 2017
(State Vs. Ashish Dwivedi), for the offence
under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station Khaga, District Fatehpur. The said
revision was decided by this Court vide
order dated 27.01.2021. The present
recall/restoration application has been filed
on behalf of opposite party no. 2 Ashish
Dwivedi.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2 Ashish Dwivedi
that the said revision was filed by the
revisionist Ankita Singh against the order
dated 27.07.2020 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2,
Fatehpur. The matter was listed for
argument on 27.01.2021. The learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 did not
appear before the Court as he was busy in
argument in some other Court and this
Court instead of giving an opportunity of
being heard to opposite party no. 2, decided
the revision on merits. It is further
submitted that the said order has not been
passed on merits because the opposite party
no. 2 has not been heard and no opportunity
to argue the case was given to him and the
revision was decided without hearing the
arguments of the opposite party no. 2,
therefore, the same may kindly be recalled
and be decided on merits. He has placed
reliance on several judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court in the
cases of Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.
and another, passed in Criminal Appeal
No(s) 1323 of 2004 decided on 23.02.2011,
Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengal
& Ors, 2009 AIR SCW 2784, Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of U.P.
and others passed in Criminal Revision
No. 11 of 2009 decided on 20.11.2015 and
Smt. Santosh Kumari and 2 Ors Vs. State
of U.P. and another passed in Application
U/S 482 No. 1058 of 2019 decided on
09.11.2021.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
revisionist
Anita
Singh
opposed
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2 and submitted
that she had filed the present criminal
revision against the order dated 27.07.2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 2, Fatehpur. The learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 did not
appear in the Court on 06.01.2021 and
18.01.2021. This Court had provided
sufficient opportunity to him for submitting
his arguments but on 27.01.2021, when the
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
did not appear in the Court, this Court had
passed the order dated 27.01.2021. The said
11 All. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085
order has been passed exercising powers
conferred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and
the same cannot be exercised beyond the
scope of Section 362 Cr.P.C.

6.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
entire record carefully.

7. Before discussing the case law on
the subject, it would be useful to quote
section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure:

"362.
Court
not
to
alter
judgment:- Save as otherwise provided by
this code or by any other law for the time
being in force, no court, when it has signed
its judgement or final order disposing of a
case, shall alter or review the same except
to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

8. Perusal of Section 362 Cr.P.C. it is
crystal clear that no Court after it has
signed its judgement or final order
disposing of a case, shall not alter or review
the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error. By means of this recall
application, the applicant/opposite party no.
2 wants this Court to rehear the case afresh
on merits. If the contention of the learned
counsel for the applicant is accepted and
Court hears the case on merits and pass
order, that would amount to reviewing its
earlier order altering it, which is totally
prohibited by Section 362 Cr.P.C.

9. It is settled by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in plethora of judgement that the
Court should not review its earlier order.

10. In State of Orissa Vs. Ram
Chander Agarwala and others, 1979 SCR
(1) 1114, the accused therein after being
convicted filed an appeal before the learned
Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge
while dismissing the appeals found that the
law required imposition of a minimum
sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-for each
offence and as the sentence passed by the
Trial Court was not in accordance with the
law, he referred the matter to the High
Court for passing an appropriate sentence.
The accused preferred a revision against
the order of Sessions Judge. Both the
proceedings were heard together and the
High Court dismissed the revision petition
preferred by the accused and accepted the
reference by the Sessions Judge and
enhanced the sentence so far as the firms
are concerned to a sum of Rs. 3900/-. As
regard the Managers or the managing
partners the High Court sentenced them to
six months rigorous imprisonment. The
Manager and Managing partners filed
petitions before the High Court for review
of its order. The High court accepted the
petition for review and recalled its previous
judgement imposing sentence of six months
and instead imposed a fine of Rs. 3900/-.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court while
quashing the subsequent order of the High
Court has held as under:

"That once a judgement has been
pronounced by a High Court either in
exercise of its appellate or its revisional
jurisdiction, no review or revision can be
entertained against that judgement as there
are
no
provisions
in
the
Criminal
Procedure Code which would enable the
High Court to review the same or to
exercise revisional jurisdiction."

12. In Moti Lal Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1544, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that Section 362
Cr.P.C. in clear terms lays down that the
Court cannot alter judgement after the same
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been signed except to correct clerical or
arithmetical error. That being the position
the High Court had no jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to alter the earlier
judgment.

13. A three Judge Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Naresh and another Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC
1385, held as under:

"We are entirely at a loss to
understand the order dated April 14, 1989.
In their judgement dated February 25,
1980 while discussing the case against
Naresh the learned Judge had given a
specific and express finding that he
intended to kill the deceased Bahadur and,
therefore, had committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal
code. The operative part of the judgment
also said the same thing. We do not
understand what the learned Judges mean
when they state in their order dated April
14, 1980, " there is clerical mistake in the
operative part of the judgment." The High
Court was wholly wrong in altering the
judgment pronounced by them disposing of
the Criminal Appeals. That was clearly in
contravention of the provisions of Section
362 Cr.P.C. what was worse, the High
court acted in purported exercise of the
power to correct clerical mistakes when in
fact there was none. The conviction under
Section 302 Indian Penal Code was
perfectly correct and the conviction had
been rightly affirmed by the High Court in
the first instance. There was no occasion at
all for the purported exercise of power to
correct a clerical mistake and alter the
conviction under Section 302 to one under
Section 304 Indian Penal Code. We are
greatly concerned that the High court
should have committed this grievous error.
There is, however, nothing that we can do
about it at this juncture as the State has not
chosen to file any appeal against the order
dated April 14, 1980."

14. In Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal
and another, AIR 1981 SC 736, Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the prohibition in
Section 362 Cr.P.C. against the Court
altering or reviewing its judgement, is
subject to what is "otherwise provided by
this code or by any other law for the time
being in force". Those words, however,
refer to those provisions only where the
Court has been expressly authorised by the
Code or other law to alter or review its
judgement. The inherent power of the
Court is not contemplated by the saving
provision contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C.
and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that
power can be of no avail.

15. Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan
Singh Bajwa and others, 2001 (1) SCC
169, was a case in which after disposal of
the petition filed by the applicant therein by
the High Court and consequently action
was taken thereof, the applicant filed
another petition, which was entertained and
disposed of by the same learned Single
Judge. Hon'ble Apex Court while setting
aside the order passed by the High Court
held as under:

"We have noted with disgust that
the
impugned
orders
were
passed
completely ignoring the basic principles of
criminal law. No review of an order is
contemplated under the Code of Criminal
Procedure. After the disposal of the main
petition on 7.1.1999, there was no lis
pending in the High Court wherein the
respondent
could
have
filed
any
miscellaneous petition. The filing of a
miscellaneous petition not referable to any
provision of Code of Criminal Procedure
11 All. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1087
or the rules of the Court, cannot be
resorted to as a substitute of fresh
litigation. The record of the proceedings
produced before us shows that directions in
the case filed by the respondents were
issued apparently without notice to any of
the respondents in the petition. Merely
because the respondent No. 1 was an
Advocate, did not justify the issuance of
directions at his request without notice of
the other side. The impugned orders dated
30th April, 1999 and 21st July, 1999 could
not have been passed by the High Court
under its inherent power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
practice of filing miscellaneous petitions
after the disposal of the main case and
issuance of fresh directions in such
miscellaneous petitions by the High Court
are unwarranted, not referable to any
statutory provision and in substance the
abuse of the process of the court.

There is no provision in the Code
of Criminal Procedure authorizing the
High Court to review its judgment passed
either in exercise of its appellate or
revisional or original criminal jurisdiction.
Such a power cannot be exercised with the
aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the
Code.

The Court further held thus:

"Section
362
of
the
Code
mandates that no Court, when it has signed
its judgment or final order disposing of a
case shall alter or review the same except
to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
The Section is based on an acknowledged
principle of law that once a matter is
finally disposed of by a Court, the said
Court in the absence of a specific statutory
provision becomes functus officio and
disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for
the same relief unless the former order of
final disposal is set aside by a court of
competent
jurisdiction
in
a
manner
prescribed by law. The court becomes
functus officio the moment the official
order disposing of a case is signed. Such an
order cannot be altered except to the extent
of correcting a clerical or arithmetical
error."

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
represented by D.S.P. Vs. K.V. Rajendran
and others, (Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of
2008), decided on 02.9.2008, while dealing
with a question as to whether in exercise of
the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the code of Criminal Procedure, an order
disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to
grant any relief, could be modified and,
thereafter, an investigation, which was with
the State Police authorities could be
transferred to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The Court after discussing a
catena of judgement observed thus:

"As noted herein earlier, Section
362 of the code prohibits reopening of a
final order except in the cases of clerical or
arithmetical errors. Such being the position
and in view of the expressed prohibition in
the code itself in the form of Section 362,
exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Code cannot be exercised to reopen or
alter an order disposing of a petition
decided on merits."

17. In State of Punjab Vs. Davinder
Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"There is no power of review with
the criminal court after the judgement has
been rendered. The High Court can alter or
review its judgement before it is signed.
When an order is passed, it cannot be
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on
an acknowledged principle of law that once
a matter is finally disposed of by a court,
the said court in the absence of a specific
statutory provision becomes functus officio
and is disentitled to entertain a fresh
prayer for any relief unless the former
order of final disposal is set aside by a
court of competent jurisdiction in a manner
prescribed by law. The court becomes
functus officio the moment the order for
disposing of a case is signed. Such an order
cannot be altered except to the extent of
correcting a clerical or arithmetical error.
There is also no provision for modification
of the judgement."

18. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that the criminal
justice delivery system does not empower
the Court to add or delete any words,
except to correct the clerical or arithmetical
error as has specifically been provided
under
the
statute
itself
that
after
pronouncement of the judgement the Judge
becomes functus officio. Any mistake or
glaring omission is left to be corrected only
by the appropriate forum in accordance
with law.

19. The
record
shows
that
on
06.01.2021 and 18.01.2021, no one was
present for the opposite party no. 2. It
means that the opposite party no. 2 did not
appear on two previous dates and also on
the date when the revision was decided on
merits. The opposite party no. 2 was given
sufficient opportunity for arguments.

20.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court
coupled with the provisions of Section 362
Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to recall the
order dated 27.01.2021 disposing of the
revision.

21. Accordingly, this recall application
is rejected.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1088
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1956 of 2025

Padmakar Upadhyay ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sheshadri Trivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Ashok Kumar Singh, G.A., Pratibha Singh

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in
discharging the accused persons from the
offence under Section 307 IPC at the stage of
consideration under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., by
evaluating the nature of injuries and holding
that no life-threatening injury was caused,
instead of confining itself to the test of
existence of a prima facie case.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.227, 228 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
s.307 - Discharge - Framing of charge -
Attempt to murder - Prima facie case -
Scope of scrutiny - No roving enquiry -
Mini-trial
impermissible
-
Order
of
discharge set aside.

Held:

At the stage of consideration under Sections 227
and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine
whether the material on record, if taken at its
face value, discloses the existence of a prima
facie case against the accused. The Court is not
expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of