IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1063 of 2014 Between:
D. Venkata Satya Narayana Gupta, S/o. Sanyasi Raju, Aged 47 years, Enforcement Officer, District Office, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kakinada.
.. Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State, Central Bureau of Investigation, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1063 of 2014 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dated 08.05.2014, in Crl.M.P.No.263 of 2014 in C.C.No.19 of 2008 of the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
2. The petitioner in this Revision is Accused No.1 in the above C.C. The petitioner and the second accused were jointly charged under Section 120-B IPC and other offences vide a charge sheet framed on 20.04.2009 by the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, on a memo filed by the prosecution on 26.03.2014, the charges were separately framed against the accused on 27.03.2014.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. alleging that the action of the Court in splitting the joint charge under Section 120-B IPC into separate charges amounts to alteration in the charge and, therefore the Court is bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 217 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent filed a counter opposing the said plea stating that the charges which were framed against the accused on 27.03.2014 contain the same contents as the charges which were framed previously and that no new or additional charge was framed under Section 120-B IPC against the second accused since already a charge under Section 120-B IPC was framed against both the petitioner and the Accused No.2 as Charge No.1.
5. By order, dated 08.05.2014, the Court below rejected the application holding that only a technical irregularity had occurred at the time of framing the charges as they had been framed jointly against both the accused, but this was corrected subsequently by separating the charges and the charges were once again read with and explained to the accused in the open Court. The Court held that no additional charge was framed against the petitioner and no prejudice is caused to him. It also held that the charges were not altered as contended by the petitioner. It held that the irregularity in the framing of the charges was brought to the notice of the Court by the Memo dated 28.03.2014 filed by the prosecution and the same was rectified. It also noted that re-call or re-examination of witnesses would cause delay, that it would defeat the ends of justice as P.Ws.2, 4, 8 and 9 were cross-examined at length by both the accused, and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner since no new charge has been framed against the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved thereby, this Revision is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous; that the splitting up of the joint charge under Section 120-B IPC originally framed against Accused Nos.1 and 2 into separate charges against each of them, amounts to alteration of the charge and once such alteration occurs, the petitioner has a right under Section 217 Cr.P.C. to re-call all the witnesses who have already been examined by the prosecution.
8. Learned Special Standing Counsel for C.B.I., Sri P. Keshava Rao submits that the order passed by the Court below is correct and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. He also pointed out that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner since the charge under Section 120-B IPC was originally framed against the petitioner also and there is neither addition nor alteration in the charges.
9. I have noted the submissions of both sides.
10. It is not disputed that originally when charges were framed on 20.04.2009, the charge under Section 120-B IPC was jointly framed against the petitioner and the second accused. Subsequently, the prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; the accused also led evidence in defence and the case was posted for arguments on 26.3.2014. At that juncture, the Special Public Prosecutor filed a Memo dated 28.03.2014 to separate the charges which were jointly framed against both the accused. In view of the said memo, charges under Section 120-B IPC were separately framed against the petitioner and the second accused on 27.03.2014. The charges were once again read over and explained to the accused in open Court. In my opinion, the separate framing of charge under Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner and the second accused by the Court below cannot be held to be an alteration in the charge or the addition of a new charge warranting compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 217 Cr.P.C. What actually happened was that the charges which were jointly framed under Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner and the second accused were separated and both the accused were separately charged under the said provision of law. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Admittedly, the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence are closed and the case is coming up for arguments. At this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to seek to re-call the prosecution witnesses and prolong the trial.
11. I am satisfied that there is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision case therefore fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this petition shall stand closed.
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,J Date: 15th May, 2014. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1063 of 2014 Dated 15.05.2014 KL