NT Reporter
Panaji
Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the prosecution, at the commencement of a sessions trial, to state the charges and outline the evidence it proposes to present. However, despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court and other courts, this mandatory requirement is often ignored by trial courts, the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Friday said.
“In many cases, a hearing conventionally called as ‘hearing on charge’, bypasses Section 226 and approaches Section 227 directly. This is one such case,” the court said.
The HC’s observations came in a revision application relating to a resort lease agreement.
The applicant, Mohamed Husain Ahmed Memon of Mumbai, arraigned as accused No. 5 in a sessions case before the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Mapusa, challenged the July 25 order directing the framing of charges against him and other accused under Sections 120-B, 395, 427 and 452 of the IPC.
Justice Ashish S Chavan quashed and set aside the order, but only in respect of the applicant.
“…Compliance of Sections 226 and 227 is not an empty formality and the sessions courts are bound to comply with these sections in letter and spirit. Section 226 has been enacted so that the accused knows in advance the nature of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to lead in order to prove the charge brought against him. At that stage, the sessions court has to consider the record of the case. Thereafter, the sessions court is obliged to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution as provided for in Section 227 of CrPC,” the High Court said.
The court said the object of Section 227 is to ensure expeditious disposal of sessions cases, and since it depends on compliance with Section 226, the judge is already aware of the evidence proposed against the accused. It said Section 226 narrows the scope of evidence the prosecution intends to rely on and therefore highlights the importance
of Section 227.
