Criminal Revision No.222 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.222 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 Devinder and another ......................................................... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ............................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 323/325/34 IPC vide order dated 20.1.2010 without supplying the copies of challan. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged the FIR against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners along with two other persons gave injuries to the complainant and his wife. The police conducted investigation and submitted copy of the challan in the Court. On the day of framing of charge, copies of challan were supplied to the accused. The petitioner-Devinder Singh contends that he was not supplied all the Criminal Revision No.222 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] documents and, therefore, he did not know what were the allegations against him. After framing of charge on 20.1.2010, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 19.8.2010. The charge-sheet was supplied to the petitioners that the accused had caused simple injuries to the complainant Rajesh, his wife and son with blunt weapon. The petitioner Devinder Singh also made an application on 19.8.2010 that eight documents had not been given to him with the copy of challan. The matter is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 24.3.2011. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that it is mandatory under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and as provided under Section 228 Cr.P.C that at the time of charge, all the parties have to be heard. If the challan has not been supplied to the accused then he cannot make his submissions and the provisions of giving opportunity of hearing to the accused becomes negatory. In the present case, as per the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, copy of challan had to be supplied to the accused free of cost as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he was heard on charge. This is the mandatory requirement under Section 207 Cr.P.C. which has been complied by the Court before framing of charge. After this order was passed on 20.1.2010, the petitioners moved an application on 19.8.2010 for supply of eight documents and copy of challan. The petitioners, if aggrieved, could have moved an application before the trial Court on the very next day after the order dated 20.1.2010 was passed. However, they have chosen to file this application on 19.8.2010. In any case, if the documents sought by the petitioner-Devinder Singh are given now, he can take all the pleas before Criminal Revision No.222 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] the trial Court when the evidence is to be recorded. The requirement of mandatory provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. has been duly complied. The revision is dismissed. 7.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE