[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 16 December, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1215 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Sri Kumar Yogendra Narayan Singh R/o Sityog
Prodyogiki Sansthan (Sityog Institute of Technology), Jasoiya Mod, P.S.-
Town, Distt- Aurangabad. At present R/o Sankula Tower, Sector - 8/B, Plot
-D, Near St. Joshef Church, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Konkan Bhavan,
Thane, Maharashtra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Diwakar, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Md. Fahimuddin, APP
For the Accused : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing
on behalf of accused Rakesh Kumar @ Bablu.
02. The instant criminal revision petition has
been filed against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Aurangabad in
Aurangabad Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023, G.R. No. 2074 of
2023, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf
of the informant, for taking into consideration the occurrence of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
2/10
24.05.2024
, while framing the charge, has been rejected.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is the informant of Aurangabad Cyber P.S.
Case No. 11 of 2023 which was lodged on 04.08.2023 under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 66 D of I.T. Act. The petitioner was cheated of an
amount of Rs.5,60,600/-. Subsequently, the informant/petitioner
received another fraudulent call on 23.05.2024 asking him to do
certain things for claiming the defrauded amount and the collar
himself introduced to be an official of cyber cell. The petitioner
immediately informed the police authorities and consequently,
accused Rakesh @ Bablu was apprehended on 24.05.2024 and
seizure list was prepared for the article seized from the accused.
The confession of the accused was also recorded. Learned
counsel thus submits that the arrest of the accused, recording of
his confessional statement and preparation of seizure list are
part of same transaction, arising out of FIR of Aurangabad
Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023. The charge sheet has been
submitted on 21.07.2024 taking into consideration all the
occurences which have taken place from 22.06.2023 till the
arrest of the accused Rakesh Kumar @ Bablu on 24.05.2024
and thereafter, cognizance has been taken on 26.07.2024 under
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 66D of I.T. Act. However, when the charges were
framed on 21.08.2024, the period of occurrence was specified
from 22.06.2023 till 28.07.2023, omitting the incident of
23.05.2024 without assigning any specific reason. Thereafter, an
application was filed on behalf of the informant/petitioner on
16.09.2025 for addition/alteration of charge taking into accounts
the incident of 23.05.2024 as the part of same transaction. But
the learned trial court vide order dated 13.10.2025 rejected the
prayer for addition/alteration of charge which is under
challenge.
04. Learned counsel further submits that the
learned trial court made an erroneous observation while taking
into consideration Section 215 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short 'the Code') for rejecting the prayer of
alteration of charge. In the present case, the provision of Section
215 of the Code is not applicable. Learned counsel further
submits that on the other hand Section 220(1) of the Code
provides that if, a series of acts are so connected so as to
form the same transaction, then offences more than one
committed by same person could be charged together and tried
in one trial.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
In the present case, the acts of the accused form
part of a series of transaction and he could be charged for the
same considering it a single transaction. Reference has been
made to the case of Mohan Baitha and others Vs. State of
Bihar and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1490, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified what constitutes same
transaction and observed as under:-
"... It may be noticed that under
Section 220 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, offences more than one
committed by the same persons could
be tried at one trial, if they can be
held to be in one series of acts, so as
to form the same transaction. The
expression "same transaction" from its
very nature is incapable of an exact
definition. It is not intended to be
interpreted in any artificial or
technical sense. Common sense and
the ordinary use of language must
decide whether on the fact of a
particular case, it can be held to be in
one transaction. It is not possible to
enunciate any comprehensive formula
of universal application for the
purpose of determining whether two
or more acts constitute the same
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
transaction. But the circumstances of
a given case indicating proximity of
time, unity or proximity of place,
continuity of action and community of
purpose or design are the factors for
deciding whether certain acts form
parts of the same transaction or not.
Therefore a series of acts whether are
so connected together as to form the
same transaction is purely a question
of fact to be decided on the aforesaid
criteria ..."
Thus, the learned counsel submits that as the
incident of 23.05.2024 is part of same transaction, the learned
trial court committed an error when it refused to alter/amend the
charge. Therefore, the order of learned trial court is not
sustainable as the same suffers from material irregularity and
illegality.
05. Learned APP as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of accused oppose the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the accused submits
that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order taking
into consideration Section 215 of the Code and observed that if
the date sought to be incorporated as one of the dates the
incidents is taken into consideration, it will affect the proper
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
adjudication in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that
the learned trial court took into consideration the contents of
FIR and found that there was no basis for changing the date of
occurrence even on account of prosecution evidence and
therefore, it has rightly passed the order.
06. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
the rival submission of the parties. Section 216 of the Code
provides for alteration in charge, which reads as under:-
"216. Court may alter charge:- (1) Any
Court may alter or add to any charge at any
time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall
be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge
is such that proceeding immediately with the
trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court
to prejudice the accused in his defence or the
prosecutor in the conduct of the case the
Court may, in its discretion, after such
alteration or addition has been made,
proceed with the trial as if the altered or
added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that
proceeding immediately with the trial is
likely, in the opinion of the Court to
prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new
trial or adjourn the trial for such period as
may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or
added charge is one for the prosecution of
which previous sanction is necessary, the
case shall not be proceeded with until such
sanction is obtained, unless sanction had
been already obtained for a prosecution on
the same facts as those on which the altered
or added charge is founded."
Therefor, charge can be amended or altered any
time before the judgment is pronounced. Thereafter, Section 220
of the Code reads as under:-
"220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1)
If, in one series of acts so connected together
as to form the same transaction, more
offences than one are committed by the same
person, he may be charged with, and tried at
one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more
offences of criminal breach of trust or
dishonest misappropriation of property as
provided in Sub-Section (2) of section 212 or
in Sub-Section (1) of section 219, is accused
of committing, for the purpose of facilitating
or concealing the commission of that offence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
or those offences, one or more offences of
falsification of accounts, he may be charged
with, and tried at one trial for, every such
offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence
falling within two or more separate
definitions of any law in force for the time
being by which offences are defined or
punished, the person accused of them may
be charged with, and tried at one trial for,
each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than
one would by itself or themselves constitute
an offence, constitute when combined a
different offence, the person accused of them
may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for the offence constituted by such acts when
combined, and for any offence constituted by
any one, or more, or such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall
affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860)."
The plain reading of the provision makes it clear
that if the offences are committed by the same person in same
transaction, the such person could be tried at one trial.
07. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it is clear that the incident dated 23.05.2024 forms part of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
same transaction, hence it should be reflected while framing of
the charge. However, the learned trial court has acted mainly on
the ground that the occurrence took place during 22.06.2023 to
28.07.2023 and there was no mention of occurrence of
23.05.2024 in the FIR. Charges are to be framed on the material
available before the court which are the investigation report,
commonly known as police papers. When the occurrence dated
23.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 have been mentioned at the time of
filing of charge sheet, the same were relevant for the purpose of
framing of charge. The learned trial court was duty bound to
look into all papers available before it while framing of charge
and omission to take into consideration all the papers makes the
order improper. The charge sheet mentioned that the charge
sheet was submitted take into consideration the seizure list,
confessional statement and other available materials. But the
learned trial court omitted to consider these facts and passed an
erroneous order. So, the impugned order suffers from material
irregularity and impropriety and hence, the order dated
13.10.2025 is set aside.
08. Accordingly, the present criminal revision
petition stands allowed.
09. The learned trial court is directed to consider
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1215 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
the prayer of the petitioner made in the application dated
16.09.2025 in the light of observation made hereinbefore.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.12.2025
Transmission Date 17.12.2025
