The revision has been filed against the order framing charges by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kollam. The allegation in the petition was that the revision petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.457/2012 of Ezhukone police station of Kollam district and they were charge sheeted by the police under sections 462, 324, 323, 326, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was committed to the Sessions Court where it was taken on file as SC.No.398/2013 and it was made over to Additional Sessions Court-V, Kollam for disposal. The grievance of the revision petitioners was that they were not heard before framing charges and summons has been issued to the witnesses and it is posted tomorrow and the trial will start tomorrow. So according to them, prejudice will be caused on account of non hearing on the question of charge. Considering the allegations made, this Court has called for a report from the concerned judicial officer regarding the things transpired in the case and the learned Sessions Judge has sent a report, which reads as follows: “With reference to the above, I may submit the following facts for kind consideration. SC.No.398/13 was pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottrakkara. As per the Order No.BC-I 9243 /14 dated 18.9.14 of the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Kollam, the case was made over to this court and the accused were directed to appear on 30.10.14. On 30.10.14 all accused were absent and an advocate filed fresh vakalath. The case was posted for preliminary hearing and framing charge to 7.11.2014. On 7.11.14 all accused appeared before this court. After hearing charge was framed. It was read over and explained to the accused which was denied by them. Thereafter the case was posted to 17.12.14 and summons was issued to Cws 1 and 2.
Summons was issued to Cws 3 and 4 to appear on 18.12.14.”
2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
3. On going thorough the report, it is found that though it was posted on 7.11.2014 for hearing of charges and framing charges, since there was no hearing requested by the defence counsel, charge was framed and it was posted to 18.12.2014 for trial and summons have been issued to the witnesses. Normally, unless the counsel seeks for hearing on the question of framing charge, the court will not post the case again for the purpose of hearing charges. Since the case is already posted for trial, there is no necessity to entertain the revision and all the contentions raised by the petitioners can be raised before the trial court and that court can consider the case on the basis of evidence and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Further, the allegations show that charge framed cannot be said to be illegal also. So under the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge