1 cri appln 2183.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2183 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus 1. Pandu S/o Peeraji Dhongde and other .. Respondents Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for respondents. Since the facts of the case are extensively stated by the Trial Court, same are not repeated here. Upon hearing counsel for respondents and upon perusal of para 6 of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Magistrate tried the case in summary manner and no charge was framed. The sentence which was awarded to respondents was more than three months. 2 cri appln 2183.10 Therefore, the Sessions Court after taking recourse to Sec. 211 and also Section 260 and Section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code in para 6 held that, the Magistrate was not justified in trying the case in summary manner. The Sessions Court has also observed that, the Presiding Officer who has passed the judgment was having summary power or not that was also not stated in the judgment by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is held that for non framing of charge U/Sec. 211 of Cr. P. C. the entire trial is vitiated. That apart, the Court has also considered the matter on merits and held respondents not guilty of the offence charge against them. 2. The counsel appearing for respondents has taken me through the provisions of Sec. 211, 260 and 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code and upon perusal of Sec. 260, though the Magistrate can try the case summarily for the offence in which maximum sentence is given two years. However, sub section 2 of Sec. 262 mandates that in summary case conviction should not be given for more than three months. In my opinion, the Sessions Court has taken correct view in the matter and made the observations based upon the provisions of Sec. 211. In para 6 of the impugned judgment, possible view has been taken. That 3 cri appln 2183.10 apart, no medical evidence is brought on record to corroborate the evidence of complainant and her daughter. The benefit of doubt has rightly been given to the respondents/accused. I do not think the case is made out for interference. Hence application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. Consequently, the registration of the appeal is refused. The original Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11