Paramjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the relevant facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core

controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, having completed all the codal formalities, petitioner-

Paramjit Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days, for the commission of offence punishable under

Sections 352 and 506 IPC, by the trial Magistrate, by virtue of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2010. Aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the matter was remitted back to the trial

Court, for fresh trial by the Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 25.05.2011, which in substance is as under:

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal in hand is disposed off with the effect that the findings returned by the learned trial court are

reversed, however, the accused/appellant is not acquitted. Rather he is ordered to be retired by the court of competent jurisdiction. The case is

remanded herewith to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, directing him to frame the formal charge against the accused u/s 377

of the Indian Penal Code, conduct the retiral and decide the case afresh. The accused is directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Patiala on 4.6.2011. Ahlmad is directed to send the trial court file along with a copy of this judgment to the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Patiala for compliance, well before the date fixed.

The petitioner-accused still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court and preferred the present revision petition,

invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr. P.C.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the

entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.

As is evident from the record that, since the trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner-accused u/s 294 IPC, but he was convicted

for the commission of offence punishable u/s 352 IPC, without framing the charge. So, to my mind, the Appellate Court has rightly remanded the

case for its fresh decision in this respect.

Be that as it may, however, the argument of the learned counsel that the Appellate Court has illegally directed the trial Court to frame the charge

u/s 377 IPC against the petitioner-accused, without any material on record, has considerable force. To me, the Appellate Court has slipped into a

deep legal error in this relevant connection. It was the statutory duty of the Magistrate to apply his own independent mind to form an opinion on the

basis of material on record that what particular offence is made out and to charge-sheet the accused accordingly. Therefore, the impugned

judgment of the Appellate Court deserves to be modified to that extent. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant

revision petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to mention that, the Magistrate would apply his own independent mind to form an opinion on the basis of material on record and to

charge-sheet the accused accordingly, without being influenced by any observations contained in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court.