Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21674 of 2011 ====================================================== Kamal Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mr. Dinesh Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 23-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27th April 2011 by which the court below has refused to modify the charge and at the same time has given liberty to examine the complainant himself, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.2,000/- for frivolous application and Rs.1,000/- for allowing the application [STATUTE] ). From the record it appears that a petition for altering the charge was filed by the petitioner in 2008 and the same was rejected on 10th July 2008 and thereafter the petitioner filed Cr. Revn. No. 196 of 2008 which was also dismissed. Petitioner was asked to appear for his cross-examination but in stead of his appearance, he filed another petition for amendment of charge. The court has come to a conclusion that the petitioner adopted a dilatory tactics for protracting the trial of the case and has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21674 of 2011 (2) dt.23-08-2012 2 / 3 2 awarded a cost of Rs.2,000/- and the court allowed the petition filed [STATUTE] next date, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order refusing the amendment of the charge number of witnesses were examined and, as such, he has filed a fresh petition for amendment of the charge and he submits that he had filed petition because such right has been conferred under [STATUTE] terial showing substantial change in the circumstances and this Court also finds that the court below has rightly refused to amend the charge. If the petitioner was aggrieved from the earlier order of refusal to amend the charge, he could have approached this Court after revisional order but that order has become final. The application filed [STATUTE] ourt subject to payment of cost on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, in nut shell the petitioner is aggrieved only with the portion of the order by which he has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- and only thereafter he will be allowed to come forward for his cross-examination. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as it is a case of Society and this amount will cause financial problem to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21674 of 2011 (2) dt.23-08-2012 3 / 3 3 society. As it appears that the matter relates to a Society and taking a lenient view, petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.1,000/- and he will appear on 11th September 2012 for his cross-examination, subject to such payment. If the petitioner fails to appear on the next date, the court below will have the liberty to realize the amount of Rs.3,000/- from the petitioner, not from the Society. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 216

Statute Text:
Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code. Harbouring an offender who has escaped from custody, or whose apprehension has been ordered, If the offence be capital. Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say: if a capital offence — if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment — if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both. "Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India.