AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
This petition is filed seeking to set aside the Order dated 23.11.2011 passed Dy the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No. 22977/2005.
Heard Sri.Tomy Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Satish R.Girji, learned High Court Govt. Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and M/s.G.Jayaraj and Associates for Respondents 2 to 7.
Sri.Tomy Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the prosecution filed an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C, seeking to add Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the charge already framed by the learned Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the accused had filed objection to the said application ant by Order dated 23.11.2011, learned Magistrate has rejected the said application.
This Court had an occasion to deal with Criminal Petition No. 6685/2009 in which, it was directed on 21.10.2011 that the trial shall be completed within an outer limit of four months from that date, It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence has been commenced after framing charge in pursuance of the order of this Court.
So far as the provisions u/s 216 Cr.P.C, is concerned, Court has power to add or alter the charge in any case till the date of pronouncement of Judgment. Hence, by setting aside the Order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, option is kept open to the learned Magistrate to pase such orders as found necessary after the evidence is recorded and if the learned Magistrate finds that he should add Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the charge, he is at liberty to do so. With these observations, the petition is disposed of without affecting the outer limit imposed by this Court in the earlier petition.