TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court sets aside order adding petitioner as accused in criminal case, emphasizes evidence requirement under Section 319</h1> <h3>Krishna Parasharam Karekar Versus The State of Maharashtra</h3> Krishna Parasharam Karekar Versus The State of Maharashtra - TMI Issues:Application challenging the order of adding the petitioner as an accused in a criminal case. Interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding the power of the court to proceed against any person during an inquiry or trial based on evidence presented in court.Analysis:The petitioner, initially a witness in a criminal case, was directed to be made an accused by the trial Magistrate based on an application by the Assistant Public Prosecutor alleging his involvement in purchasing stolen property. The Sessions Judge deemed it an interlocutory order and refused to interfere, leading the petitioner to file the current application challenging the order. The High Court, after reviewing the Magistrate's order and Section 319 of the CrPC, found the procedure adopted by the Magistrate to be misconceived.Section 319 of the CrPC empowers the court to proceed against any person, not originally accused, if it appears from the evidence presented during the inquiry or trial that such person has committed an offense. The court clarified that the evidence referred to in this section is the actual evidence presented in court during proceedings, not the material collected by the police or mentioned in police papers. The court emphasized that the evidence must induce the court to believe that action under Section 319 is necessary.The court held that the order adding the petitioner as an accused was premature and without jurisdiction, as it was based on police papers rather than actual evidence presented in court. The State's Public Prosecutor conceded that the order was premature and should have awaited the evidence being led in court. The High Court quashed the order adding the petitioner to the charge-sheet, directed his name to be deleted, and instructed the trial Magistrate to proceed with recording evidence and disposing of the case in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order adding the petitioner as an accused, and provided directions for the further proceedings in the case. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing the importance of evidence presented in court for the court to exercise its powers under the said provision.
TaxTMI 