Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2355 of 2018 Revisionist :- Shahnaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.
This revision has been preferred against an order dated 6 June 2018, rejecting the application of the revisionist seeking addition of charges under Section 376/512 IPC. Admittedly this application was made only at the stage when the final arguments were to commence and the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had already been recorded. The only explanation proffered was that when the applicant came to know that Sections 376 and 512 IPC had not been added, the application had been moved.
While it cannot possibly be disputed that a charge can be amended or added at any stage of the proceedings, the Court must also bear in mind the stage at which such an application is made. The trial in this case had commenced as far back as in 2013 and the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, as per the learned counsel for the applicant, were recorded in 2015. More fundamentally it would be apposite to bear in mind the scope and content of the power conferred upon the trial Judge by virtue of Section 216 Cr.P.C. Elaborating upon the same, the Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh [(2017) 3 SCC 347] observed as under:-
“6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1. Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now well settled that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.
7. We were taken through Sections 221 and 222 CrPC in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this case, we are only concerned with Section 216 CrPC. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the implications of the other provisions to the case on hand. We wish to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. In the light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of Section 216 CrPC is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment, we make it clear that no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. If such a course to be adopted by the parties is allowed, then it will be well-nigh impossible for the criminal court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardised.”
From the principles enunciated in the said decision, it is evident that the applicant lacked essential locus to raise such an issue since the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C stands vested in the Court exclusively and does not confer any right upon a party to seek the addition or alteration of charge as a matter of right. Additionally the Court notes that the learned counsel was unable to establish before this Court or invite it attention to any material which may have justified the addition of charges under Sections 376 and 512 IPC. The addition or alteration of charge must necessarily be based upon material existing before the Court and which is shown to have an indelible connection to the charges sought to be added or modified. This the applicant has failed to establish.
On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no merit in the revision which shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 nethra