The Apex Court Opined That At The Discharge Stage Under Section 227 CrPC, The Accused's Plea On The Applicability Of Section 300 CrPC Must Be Considered

Case title:
Chandi Puliya Vs State Of West Bengal

Date of Order:
12th December 2022

Bench:
Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar

Parties:
Petitioner- Chandi Puliya
Respondent- The State of West Bengal

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court stated that the release stage under Section 227 CrPC requires consideration of the accused's argument on the applicability of Section 300 CrPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 227 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Suppose the judge determines that there is insufficient justification for proceeding against the accused after reviewing the case file and any supporting papers and hearing the defence and prosecution's arguments. In that case, they must release the accused and note wherefore.

• Section 300 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Suppose the judge determines that there is insufficient justification for proceeding against the accused after reviewing the case file and any supporting papers and hearing the defence and prosecution's arguments. In that case, they must release the accused and note the reasons.

OVERVIEW

• In this instance, the accused approached the Trial Court with a discharge application under Section 227 r/w Section 300(1) Cr.P.C.
• He argued that he had already been cleared of kidnapping charges but was now being sought for prosecution for murder based on the same facts.
• The same was rejected on the justification that such a protest may be made during the charge-framing stage rather than during discharge.
• The Calcutta High Court upheld this order.
• The accused-appellant argued in the appeal that the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a step before the charge and that the court can only examine an application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. at this level.
• It was argued that after the court rejects the discharge application, it will frame the charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
• The only issue on the table will be the nature of the offence, not whether the appellant has committed an offence or he cannot be tried because of the bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether a discharge application under 227 r/w 300(1) can be filed at the discharge stage instead of the charge framing stage?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The learned senior counsel representing the appellant-accused vigorously argued that the courts below erred by failing to consider the appellant's plea for discharge at the discharge stage. According to the argument, the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage before the charge, and the court can only examine an application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. at this point.
• The court would then continue to formulate a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
• The only issue on the table is the nature of the offence, not whether the appellant had committed an offence or whether he could not be tried due to the bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C.
• It was also argued that the lower courts needed to understand how the discharge proceedings led to the current proceedings and how the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. came first before the stage of charge-framing under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
• According to the argument, the prohibition under Section 300(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code also applies to prosecution for the same facts for any other offence for which the accused may have been charged with a different offence under Section 221 Subsection (1) or found guilty under Subsection (2).
• In accordance with Section 300(1) Cr.P.C., it was requested grant the current appeal and release the appellant from the ensuing second FIR No. 36/2011.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• When arguing against the current appeal, the learned attorney representing the respondent, the State, asserted that the order of acquittal in regard to the first FIR is the subject of an appeal before the High Court.
• It was claimed that despite this, in FIR No. 61/2002, the appellant and other co-accused were tried for violations of Sections 148, 149, 448, 364 and 506 IPC.
• It was asserted that the deceased's dead corpse was not discovered at the pertinent period. It was argued that the appellant and other co-accused were tried and, as a result, found not guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, which will now be tried in accordance with the subsequent FIR that was filed following the discovery of the skeleton and identification of the skeleton's clothes and teeth.
• As a result, it was proposed Section 300 Cr.P.C. shall not apply in any way.
• It was also claimed that the High Court previously rejected the appellant's motion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to halt the later criminal proceedings arising out of the second FIR, leaving the appellant with little choice but to use the remedy at the time the charge was framed.
• It was argued that despite the High Court's refusal to halt the criminal proceedings brought by the subsequent second FIR, the Section 300 Cr.P.C. plea/defence was invoked.
• According to the claim, after the accused filed a request for release, the learned trial court denied the request, noting that the appellant-accused was allowed to raise all of the issues raised in the petition under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the time the charge was made.
• It was argued that the learned trial Court still needs to consider the discharge application made according to Section 227 Cr.P.C.
• It was requested to dismiss the current appeal in light of the arguments mentioned above.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

• In agreement with this assertion, the Apex Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and MR Shah noted that this exercise must be completed before the charge was framed.
• If the court ultimately determines that the facts satisfy Section 300(1), it may frame the charge in accordance with Section 228 Cr.P.C.
• The component mentioned above has yet to be valued or taken into account by the High Court.

CONCLUSION

The bench granted the appeal and instructed the Trial Court to take into account the accused's argument on the applicability of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the stage of release under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which comes before the charge is framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE