RAVINDRA @ BALA JAGARIATH PATIL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bench: H.L. DATTU,M.Y. EQBAL
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001438-001438 / 2013
Diary number: 36013 / 2012
Advocates: SHOMILA BAKSHI Vs
ASHA GOPALAN NAIR
Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.612 OF 2013)
RAVINDRA @ BALA JAGARIATH PATIL AND ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal
Revision Application No.581 of 2011, dated 10.01.2012 whereby the
High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by
the appellants.
4. The offences alleged against the appellants are punishable
under Sections 400, 336 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'the IPC'). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had framed
the charges against the appellants-herein under Section 412 of the
IPC.
5. Aggrieved by framing of the charges under Section 412 of
the IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the appellants-
Page 2
herein had filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High
Court. The High Court while affirming the orders passed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge had dismissed the same and had
levelled charge against the appellants under Section 120-B of the
IPC. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellants
are before us in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the charge
under Section 120-B was not made out against the appellants by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge and, therefore, the High Court was
not justified in dismissing the Criminal Revision Application filed
by the appellants.
7. While perusing the complaint as well as the charges framed
by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge we have observed that at no
point of time the appellants-herein were framed under Section 120-B
of the IPC. Taking that view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that the High Court ought not to have framed the appellants-herein
under Section 120-B of the IPC.
8. In view of the above, while allowing this appeal, we set
aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and affirm the
order passed by the learned Assistant Session Judge.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)
.......................J. (M.Y. EQBAL)
NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 13, 2013