AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced in the case. If the trial is being held before a Court of Magistrate it is open to that court at any stage of trial if it comes to the conclusion that the material on record indicates the commission of an offence which requires to be tried by a superior court, it can always do so by committing such case for further trial to a superior court as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). On the contrary, if the trial is being conducted in a superior court like the Sessions Court and if that court comes to the conclusion that the evidence produced in the said trial makes out a lesser offence than the one with which the accused is charged, it is always open to that court based on evidence to convict such accused for a lesser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the said case to the Court of Sessions for trial. It is to be noted that the respondent was granted bail even after the charge was modified to include section 304 Part II, IPC. On the framing of the charge under section 304 Part II, IPC, the respondent filed Criminal Application No.463 of 2003 in the Court of Sessions alleging that the facts as narrated in the complaint did not constitute an offence punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC and if at all, only a charge for an offence punishable under section 304A could be framed against him, apart from other offences triable by the court of Magistrate. Said application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge then proceeded to frame charges; one of which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he knowledge that by such act of his, he would be causing death of the victim if he meets with an accident. Such knowledge, according to learned counsel, is evident from the conduct of the respondent as could be seen from the averment in the complaint itself. He also contended that the High Court in a petition under section 482 of the Code could not have weighed the material that was before the court nor could it have tested the veracity of the statement of the complainant at this stage to come to the conclusion that the principal offence would not fall under section 304, Part II, IPC. He further contended that by doing so, the High Court has pre-judged the issue and by giving a conclusive finding in this regard has pre-empted the courts be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ressed almost a conclusive opinion as to the nature of offence, we would not have interfered with the impugned order of the High Court because, as stated above, neither of the sides would have been in any manner prejudiced in the trial by framing of a charge either under section 304A or section 304 Part II, IPC except for the fact that the forum trying the charge might have been different, which by itself, in our opinion, would not cause any prejudice. This is because at any stage of the trial it would have been open to the concerned court to have altered the charge appropriately depending on the material that is brought before it in the form of evidence. But now by virtue of the impugned judgment of the High Court even if in the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons Court ought not to have expressed its views in such certain terms which indicates that the Sessions Court had taken a final decision in regard to the material to establish a charge punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the findings in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the material to frame a charge punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC of both the courts below should be set aside and it should be left to be decided by the court trying the offence to alter or modify any such charge at an appropriate stage based on material produced by way of evidence. The next question which then requires our consideration is whether in view of our above finding, the charge framed by the Ses....