Criminal Revision No.755 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.755 of 2007 Decided on 14. 9.2009. Preetam Singh ....... Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present : Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr.Vikas Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S.Dulhan, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 6. K.C.PURI, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by Shri L.N.Jindal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide which the application filed by the State under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC was dismissed. FIR under Sections 420, 460 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) in police station Lubana was registered Criminal Revision No.755 of 2007 2 and case was pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala for the evidence. An application under Section 216 Cr.P.C was moved by the prosecution for framing charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Also, that application was dismissed by the trial Court and feeling dis-satisfied with the above said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. On 18.4.2009, following order was passed by this Court :- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and making a reference to Section 220 Cr.P.C. Prima facie I am of the opinion that if the offence of murder is committed during house breaking at night, punishment u/s 302 IPC can be imposed but before passing any order regarding framing of charge u/s 302 IPC, it is pertinent to determine whether from the material placed on the record with report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. and from the evidence produced in the court, the trial court was required, exercising powers u/s 216 Cr.P.C. to also frame charge u/s 302 IPC.” The learned trial Court seems to have been dismissed the application mainly on the ground of delay and has observed that the present application has been filed with ulterior motive. That finding of the trial Court cannot be upheld. There cannot be any ulterior motive for the prosecution in the facts of the present case. Two persons namely Gian Singh and Balwan Singh had been murdered and their articles had been taken away. As per prosecution story the stolen Criminal Revision No.755 of 2007 3 articles and weapon of offence were stated to be recovered from them. The trial Court in its order has itself observed that charge can be amended at any stage. At the time of framing of charge only prima facie case has to be seen and the charge can even be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. In authority State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy and another 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 831, Hon'ble Apex Court held that if prima facie case is made out, charge can be framed under Section 302 IPC. Again this Court in Rajnish sharma vs. State of Haryana and others 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 4, while dealing with Section 216 Cr.P.C., it has been held that charge can be added or alter, at any stage, of the trial. So far as the authority Anil @ Raju Namdev Patil vs Administration of Daman and Diu Daman & anr. 2007(1)RCR (Criminal) 911 is concerned, that authority does not helpful to the accused as in that case it has been held that accused can be convicted for lessor offence. In view of the above circumstances, the revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to frame charge under Section 302 IPC in accordance with law. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE September 14 , 2009 sv