Skip to main content

Whether Sessions Judge has Power to Alter / Amend / Add any Charge [SC JUDGMENT]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 216 - Court may alter charge - Depending upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Sessions Judge has ample power to alter / amend / add any charge.

AIR 2018 SC 3998 : 2018 (3) Crimes 501 : JT 2018 (8) SC 145 : 2018 (10) Scale 11 : 2018 (7) SLT 349

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] AND [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] JJ.
August 20, 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2218 OF 2011
State of Haryana ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajesh Aggarwal & Anr. ... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana against the final judgment and order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.413 of 2001 whereby the High Court partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein and alteredthe charge framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) to that under Section 304A IPC.


2) Few facts need to be mentioned infra for the disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.
3) There is a private limited company called “M/s Kee Pharma Private Limited” at Gurgaon (Haryana). This company is engaged in the business of manufacture of chemical drugs in their factory at Gurgaon.
4) The respondents are said to be the shareholders/Directors of the Company and are responsible for the daytoday affairs and working of the Company and its factory.
5) On 27.06.1996, a blast occurred in the factory premises and as a result of which smoke spread inthe entire factory. When the blast occurred, 45 workers were present in the factory. They ran here and there for their safety. This resulted in stampede in the factory area causing death of seven workers.
6) This led to registration of FIR No.694 of 1996 on 27.06.1996 against the respondents in PS Sadar, Gurgaon at the instance of some of the workers. It was registered against the respondents being the persons responsible for the affairs and running of the Company and its factory for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
7) The respondents, questioning the legality of the FIR registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and sought its quashing.
8) By impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the petition and altered the charge framed against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304A IPC.


9) The State felt aggrieved by the impugned order and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
10) Heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the appellantState and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
11) The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the petition and thereby was justified in altering the charge framed against the respondents for the offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304A IPC.
12) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.
13) At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the trial in the case must set in motion and conclude in terms of the direction of the High Court for deciding as to whether any case under Section 304A IPC has been made out against the respondents or not and, if so, what punishment can be imposed on them for commission of such offence, and if not, then why. In our opinion, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court for altering the charge for the offence from Section 302 to Section 304A IPC at this stage cannot be faulted with.
14) It is really unfortunate that due to pendency of this litigation and the stay operating, the trial in the case remained stayed for all these years. It obviously benefited the respondents who, despite not questioning the altering of the charge by the High Court, did not face trial even for altered charge.
15) Without expressing any opinion on the factual controversy on the said unfortunate incident, which took the life of seven workers as the same is now subject matter of trial before the Sessions Judge, we direct the Sessions Judge, who is seized of the trial of the respondents’ case in question, to ensure that the trial is completed on merits within one year from the date of this order strictly in accordance with law.


16) Needless to observe, depending upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Sessions Judge has ample power to alter/amend/add any charge by taking recourse to powers under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the High Court altering the charge at this stage.
17) With these observations/directions, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order granting interim stay is recalled.
18) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the concerned Sessions Judge/Police Station for ensuring compliance of the directions contained in this order.
Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -  Section 438 -   Grant of Anticipatory Bail -  While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]
Post a Comment
Read more