Offence against public tranquility
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 23: Additional Sessions Judge Doda, Amarjeet Singh Langeh has set aside the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda by virtue of which trial court discharged respondent/accused in case titled UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Doda Versus Rashid Annayat.
The allegations against the accused were that he kept a proactive post as status of his WhatsApp on 31-03-2020, the contents of which had the propensity to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity/hatred or ill will between different communities.
Accordingly, FIR was lodged at instance of then DC Doda and after investigation challan was presented before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda seeking prosecution of accused under Section 153-B (c) of IPC. Prosecution led evidence before trial court and ultimately after completion of trial, matter was posted for final arguments.
Vide order dated 05-08-2023, trial court altered the charge from Section 153-B (c) of IPC to 153- A of IPC. Because prosecution for Section 153- A of IPC requires previous sanction from competent authority, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda after altering the charge, discharged the accused for offence under Section 153- A of IPC on purported lack of sanction. Against this order, State filed revision before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Doda.
While allowing the revision of the State, the Additional Sessions Judge held,”the point is not that trial court had no power to alter the charge. What is of essence is that same must be founded on conscious consideration of material available on record. What weighed with the trial court while passing order impugned, has not been expounded with reasons”, adding “trial court it appears has overly rushed to conclude without expounding reasons that charge was alterable”.
Elaborating further, court further observed, “another aspect of the order impugned which cannot niggle through/withstand legal scrutiny is that after concluding that respondent ought to have been charged for offence under Section 153-A of IPC and then instead of providing opportunity to investigating agency/ prosecution to produce requisite sanction for trial of respondent in due course, trial court by adopting a very unusual procedure, chose to truncate the proceedings by discharging respondent for purported lack of sanction in an overly rushed manner”
“Prosecution cannot be expected to have uniquely endowed itself with an angelic sense to anticipate that trial court would come to the conclusion while concluding the trial of the case that respondent may be tried for offence under Section 153-A of IPC instead of Section 153- B (c) of IPC and therefore prosecution was obligated to produce sanction from competent authority on the date order impugned itself”, the court said.
Court accordingly set aside the impugned order and directed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda to pass fresh orders in the matter in light of these observations. “In case, trial court, by delineating comprehensive reasons, again comes to conclusion that case for alteration of charge against respondent from Section 153- B (c) of IPC to section 153-A of IPC is made out, in that eventuality prosecution be given reasonable and adequate opportunity to produce sanction from competent authority for prosecution of respondent and thereafter trial court shall proceed ahead in accordance with law”, the court added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
