Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 681 (MP)

D. P. Saxena v. State of M. P.

2014-06-19

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
Judgment: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2014 passed in Special Case No. 7/12 (State of M.P. Vs. Anil Yadav & Ors.) pending in the Court of Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Vidisha, the accused No. 10, D.P. Saxena has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this revision is that the petitioner along with other ten accused persons was charged under Section 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 406, 409 & 120-B of IPC. The learned Trial Court framed charges on 04.12.2013. During the course of evidence, the accused No. 10 filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. marked as I.A. No. 19 requesting to discharge him from all the charges framed against him on several grounds. 3. The learned Special Judge, Vidisha after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the State passed the impugned order and dis-allowed the same. The learned Trial Court indicated that earlier application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was decided on 04.12.2013 and charges have been framed. The learned Trial Court opined that it cannot review its own order, otherwise also, earlier application of the petitioner/accused was decided on the same grounds, therefore, the application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for amendment and alteration of the charges is virtually an application for review. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision and stated that the petitioner was innocent, no prima-face case is made out against him. He was serving half time at Barkatulla University as Asstt. Examiner and at the same time was discharging his duties in the office of Dy. Director, Bhopal. Later on, he was also given the charge of Vidisha and Raisen as a temporary arrangement. The petitioner requested to set-aside the impugned order and to allow his application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. 5. Heard the rival contentions. 6. For better understanding the provision of Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is set-out 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. Heard the rival contentions. 6. For better understanding the provision of Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is set-out 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 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 has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded. 7. On plain reading of the provision, it is very clear that this provision is meant for alteration or amendment of the charge. But the application which was submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court during the course of recording of prosecution evidence, for discharging him from the charges No. 1 to 7 levelled against him is not only untenable but also not according to the provisions of law. The Court may alter or add to the charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced, but the scope of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used for discharging the accused. The learned Trial Court has therefore not erred in dis-allowing the application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. 8. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to allow this revision, hence, it is dismissed.