Telangana High Court
M.A. Hadi Shaheri vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4686 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution filed a petition, vide Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013, before the trial Court under Section 216 (1) Cr.P.C to amend/alter the charges against the petitioners under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is stated that the case is coming up for examination of the petitioners and the prosecution has found that at the time of framing of charges, due to typographical error Section 27 of WALTA Act was typed instead of Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Further, Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was mentioned in the charge sheet was missing in the charges framed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024 charge sheet was filed under Section 147,148, 307, 326, 120-B read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act after conducting the investigation and collecting the evidence. Therefore, there is sufficient material evidence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 120-B of the IPC.
3. After hearing on both sides, the trial allowed the said petition and consequently, directed that the charge for the offence under Section 27 of WALTA Act shall be altered as charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the charge under Section 120-B of IPC shall be added against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri H. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed counter in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013, in which it is stated that P.Ws.1 to 15 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024 were examined and after conclusion of trial, the said case was posted for 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the petitioners. From the date of framing of charges, i.e., from 19.04.2016 and even during the course of entire trial, the prosecution remained silent and filed the said petition at a belated stage with an oblique motive of filling up the lacunas in the case. It is further stated that absolutely there is no evidence in the petition disclosing the acts of conspiracy among the petitioners and without bringing any substantive evidence, no party can be allowed to file a petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C to modify the charges.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the entire trial was concluded and the case was posted for 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the petitioners. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. Karimullah Osan Khan 1 , wherein it is observed that the Court can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C., only when there exists some material before 1 2014 136 AIC 238 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024 the Court which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2 , wherein it is observed that the trial Court has to take into consideration the broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence during the course of entire trial and documents produced and when satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, then only the Court is free to do so and further the Court should not have acted in mechanically without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court dated 02.04.2024 passed in Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. The Court can alter or add charges at 2 2013 128 AIC 183 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024 any stage as per Section 216 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the Court has power to alter the charges at any stage and it will not cause any prejudice to the accused. Basing on the said charges, if there is any evidence, the prosecution may produce the evidence, and there is every possibility of cross examining the witnesses, as such, the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition. Therefore, there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and perusal of the material placed on record, the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no averment in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 with regard to the conspiracy, whereas, as seen from the record, the charge sheet itself is filed for Section 120-B of the IPC and Court has not taken cognizance under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court has taken cognizance under Section 27 of the WALTA Act and the charges were framed for the said offences.
6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024
10. At this stage it is pertinent to note that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 3, wherein in paragraph No.18 and 24, it is held as follows:
"18. In CBI vs. Karimullah Osan Khan, this Court dealt with a case where an application was filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. during the Court of trial for additional of charges against the appellant under various provisions of the IPC, the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Justice K S P Radhakrishnan, speaking for the Court, held thus:
"17. Section 216 CrPC gives considerable power to the trial Court, that is, even after completion of evidence, arguments head and the judgment reserved, it can alter and add to any charge, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The expressions "at any time" and before the "judgment is pronounced" would indicate that the power is very wide and can be exercised, in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice, but at the same time, the Courts should also see that its orders would not cause any prejudice to the accused.
18. Section 216 Cr.P.C confers jurisdiction on all courts, including the Designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and sub-3
Criminal Appeal No.1934 of 2019 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024 sections (2) and (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after that addition or alteration. Needless to say, the Courts can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 CrPC, only when there exists some material before the Court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the Court."
24. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be done by the Court only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of charge the Court needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial. The High Court has relied upon the materials on record and concluded that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the reasons that have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference."
11. In view of the above judgment, though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the witnesses stated anything about the conspiracy, as such, the trial Court erroneously allowed the petition. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4686 of 2024 question of trial need not be determined at the time of framing of charges. When a petition is filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the Court has the power to alter/modify/add for framing the charges at any stage, even after completion of the trial or even after reserving the judgment. Further, framing of charges itself does not cause any prejudice to the accused and they can agitate and cross examine the witnesses on that aspect. Therefore, there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.06.2024 SAI