CR.RA/66420/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 664 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5 NO ========================================================= SANJAYKUMAR MAHASUKHLAL DATRANIA - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RC KODEKAR ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 19/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. On 17.11.2008, when the matter was first listed for admission hearing, it was dismissed for default and then restored at the oral request of learned counsel Mr.Dagli. Rule, of which service was waived by learned A.P.P. CR.RA/66420/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Upon hearing learned counsel and learned A.P.P., appearing on advance copy of the application, the petition is taken up for final disposal upon joint request of the parties. Petitioner has made the grievance that, in the proceedings of Special (Electricity) Case No.50 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Sessions and Special (Electricity) Judge at Vadodara, application Ex.5 of the petitioner was rejected on 17.9.2008. Immediately thereafter, on the same date, charge at Ex.9 was framed even as advocate of the petitioner had retired and the petitioner proposed to engage another advocate for his defence. It was submitted, on that basis, that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to make his submissions through an advocate before framing of the charge. It was further submitted that, if the petitioner were heard, the charge framed at Ex.9 might not have been framed and the petitioner could have pleaded for his discharge under the provisions of section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner was in fact supposed to have been heard before framing of the charge and it was the next stage when the petitioner would have been asked whether he proposed to be defended by an advocate. However, in view of the allegation that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard before framing of the charge under the provisions of section 228 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecution may not have any objection if the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application for discharge or alteration of the charge, provided it is expeditiously heard and disposed without causing any undue delay in the conduct of the trial. CR.RA/66420/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. In view of the above facts and submissions, petition is partly allowed, with the direction that the petitioner shall be allowed to make an application, within a period of one week, for discharge or alteration of the charge and, if such application is made, it shall be expeditiously heard and disposed in accordance with law. This order is made on the basis of the above limited concession and without entering into merits of the contentions which the petitioner may raise in the proposed application. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)