SSK/953 1 revn 490.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 490 of 2011 Shri Sunil Bishamabar Chaumal ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/b. Shri A. H. H.Ponda & Kiran Barhate, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 11th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Mr. More, learned APP waives service for the State. By consent, the revision is heard finally. 2. The above criminal revision application is filed for setting-aside the charge framed in Sessions Case No.579 of 2011 by the Sessions’ Court for Greater Bombay against the applicant. A copy of the charge is at Exhibit “A” page 22. Perusal of the same shows that the applicant has been charged under Sections 304 & 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the applicant administered a certain poison to deceased – Sushma and committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. SSK/953 2 revn 490.11 3. Mr.Marwadi, learned counsel tenders a copy of the roznama and contends that neither the accused nor his advocate were heard before framing the charge. He submits that even the prosecution did not open the case, and therefore, there was no question of making submissions on their behalf. He relied upon the provisions of Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. in this regard. Mr. More, learned APP does not dispute the above position. 4. Perusal of the roznama reveals that the Sessions’ case was placed before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on 8th August, 2011. The accused were present, however, the matter was adjourned to 12th September, 2011 for assignment. On 12th September, 2011, the accused were present, however, the matter was again adjourned to 30th September, 2011 as the court was vacant. On 30th September, 2011, the accused were present, however, their advocates were absent. Learned APP was present on behalf of the State. On that day, a charge at Exhibit “2” was framed. The plea of accused no.1 was recorded at Exhibit “3” and plea of accused no.2 was recorded at Exhibit “4” and the matter was adjourned for compliance and evidence on 12th October, 2011. The certified copy of the roznama makes it abundantly clear that neither the accused nor their advocates were heard or allowed to make submissions before framing of the charge. The prosecution also did not open the case. Sections 227 of the Cr.P.C.makes it obligatory on the part of the Sessions SSK/953 3 revn 490.11 Court to hear submissions of accused and prosecution, and consider the record of the case before framing a charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. The provisions of these sections are not complied with. Thus, a case for interference is made out. In these circumstances, on the short ground mentioned hereinabove and without going into the merits of the matter, I am of the opinion that the charge which is framed without hearing the accused deserves to be quashed and the same is, accordingly, quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall frame the charge after compliance of provisions under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.C.P.. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)