Crl. Revision No. 2525 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Revision No. 2525 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:April 22, 2010 Rakesh Kumar ---Petitioner versus Naurang Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. A.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner -accused -Rakesh Kumar, has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which he dismissed the revision petition filed by Naurang Singh-respondent-complainant, against order dated 21.2.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide which she dismissed Crl. Revision No. 2525 of 2009(O&M) {2} the application of the respondent for framing charge against the petitioner under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code along with other Sections. The respondent filed complaint against the petitioner under Sections 307, 279, 324, 325, 337, 338 and 506 IPC. The petitioner was summoned to stand his trial and on his appearance in the trial court, he was served with notice of the offence under Section 323 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the respondent also examined Dr. Chander Mohni, Radiologist, as CW-5, who reported that there was fracture in the Zygomatic Bone and left maxilla on the body of the complainant and, thereafter, the respondent filed an application for framing up the charge against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC also. His application was declined by the Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the order, vide which the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 323 IPC, had become final and only notice of that offence was served upon him. Against that order dated 21.2.2009, the respondent preferred a revision petition, which was accepted by the Sessions Judge, who directed the trial court to frame charge under Section 325 IPC and to proceed further with the trial. Notice of the revision petition was given to the respondent . I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge committed an illegality while directing the trial court to frame the charge against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC. The case was being tried as summons case and in case the charge is framed under Section 325 IPC, it will be tried as warrant case, which will result in defect in the procedure, which is not permissible and the petitioner, who is the Crl. Revision No. 2525 of 2009(O&M) {3} accused, is entitled to take the benefit thereof. On the other hand, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that there can not be any defect in the procedure, in case the charge is framed under Section 325 IPC. There is no law that once the court starts trying a case as summons case, thereafter the same cannot be tried as warrant case. The court is competent to amend or re-frame the charge at any stage. It cannot be held that any such prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner by re-framing of the charge. There is no such defect, going to result from the order of the Sessions Judge and then no question of the petitioner being entitled to any benefit thereof. According to Section 216 of the Code, the Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The petitioner was summoned to face his trial under Section 323 IPC and on his appearance before the trial court notice of that offence was given to him. During the trial, respondent examined Dr. Chander Mohini, Radiologist, as CW-5, who gave her opinion that the injury on the person of the respondent was grievous in nature. It was only on the basis of that evidence that the Sessions Judge ordered the framing of the charge against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC. No such illegality was committed by the Sessions Judge while passing that order in view of the evidence produced before the trial court. No doubt, the case was being tried by the trial court as summons case but there is no rule of law that once the court starts the trial as summons case, it cannot switch over to the procedure prescribed for the trial as warrant case. According to Section 259 of the Code, when in the course of the trial of a summons case relating to an offence punishable Crl. Revision No. 2525 of 2009(O&M) {4} with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence would be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant case. Judicial Magistrate may proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided for the tril of warrant case. Once the charge is framed under Section 325 IPC, the case is to be tried as warrant case. No prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner as it has already been held by the Sessions Judge that only the petitioner shall be called upon to further cross examine the witnesses, already examined by the prosecution, if he so desires. The order passed by the Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality nor the same can be said to be incorrect nor it can be said that the propriety required that such an order should not have been passed. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered with while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE April 22, 2010 PARAMJIT