FACTS OF THE CASE

 The respondent was originally charged of an offence u/s 304A, 279, 337, 338,
427 IPC and 134 (a) (b) r/w S. 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act. And
also u/s 66(1) (b) of the Bombay prohibition act and all these offences are
triable by a court of magistrate of a competent jurisdiction. All such charges
were registered against the respondent on a complaint lodged by Ravindra
Patil, attached with the respondent to provide him security.
 A few days later chargeheet, which was filed prior to this, was modified
which consisted of a charge u/s 304 partII that is an offence exclusively
triable by the court of sessions. Hence the learned magistrate who took
cognizance of the offence committed the case to the court of sessions.
 On framing the charge u/s 304 II the respondent filed criminal application no.
463 of 2003 in the courts of sessions alleging that the facts as narrated in the
complaint did not constitute an offence punishable u/s 304 II. This application
was rejected by the sessions court.
 Aggrieved by this order the respondents preferred a criminal application u/s
482 of CRPC before a criminal appellate bench of HC. The HC wherein
quashed the order of the sessions court and maintained the other charges and
directed the appropriate magistrate’s court to frame de novo charges including
one u/s 304A.
 Therefore, the state has filed a appeal aggrieved by the order of the HC and
contended that the accused had full knowledge of the implications of driving
the car at such a high speed and that anything which is to be reviewed by the
HC by the virtue of s. 482, it should not be done by weighing the evidence on
the record and hence HC has pre-judged the issue.
 The Hon’ble SC disposed off the appeal and particularly mentioned that the
magistrate if at any time feels that the evidence on the record has certain
weight to find the guilt of the accused u/s 304II then it must commit the case
to the sessions court without any delay.
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether or not the HC has erred in altering the charges form 304 part II to
304A?
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN QUASHING THE

ORDERS OF THE SESSIONS COURT.

1. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble bench that the HC has
rightfully quashed the findings of the sessions court as the facts of the case
hold no weightage to frame a charge u/s 304 part II.
2. The accused was originally charged of an offence punishable u/s 304A but a
few days later the chargesheet filed as above, came to be modified based on
the additional statement of the complainant, and instead of Section 304A, S.
304 part II was substituted.

3. The offence u/s 304 part II is exclusively triable by the court of sessions
hence the learned magistrate who took cognizance of the offence, committed
the said case to the court of sessions for the trail. Thereafter, on framing the
charge u/s 304 part II the respondents 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 u/s 304 Part II.

4. Therefore, the application was rejected by the session’s court and the learned
sessions judge then proceeded to frame charges one of which was for an
offence punishable u/s 304 part II. Therefore, being aggrieved by the dismissal
of his application the respondents preferred a criminal application under S.
482 of CRPC where the HC quashed the order of the session’s court of
framing charges u/s 304 part II.
5. Moreover, while doing so the Hon’ble HC took into consideration the
materials on the records and the statements of the witness which was a
complete transgression of the powers of the HC as the evidences and the
statements of the direct evidences cannot be taken into consideration by the
HC while entertaining appeals under section 4821.
6. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the order of the HC should be struck
down as the order is of 305 pages and is binding on the lower courts which

1
State of Andhra Pradesh v. gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010) 6 SCALE 767. (bare act
crpc comment 1)
will further disable the lower courts to examine the witnesses and the materials
on the record.
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the lights of the issues raised and arguments advanced it is most humbly
prayed before this hon’ble court.

1. to quash the holding of the hon’ble HC regarding the said matter.

And/may pass any other order, which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the light of
justice and equity.

Counsel on behalf of petitioner.