Section 216 of Cr.P.C..Court may alter charge.

Section 216 of Cr.P.C..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 defense 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.

 

 

“The petitioner had already availed of remedy of

revision before the Sessions Court. Thus, the present revision under the

garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Thirdly, in any case, the

trial Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. can at any time alter or modify the

evidence and relied on a judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case

of State of Maharasthra v. Salman Salim Khan and another reported as

2004 (1) CRC (Criminal) 314 as well as in the case of State of J & K v.

Abdul Ahad Sheikh reported as 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 171 to

substantiate that the High Court can not alter the charge in exercise of its

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it should be left to the trial court to

alter or modify in such charge at any appropriate stage based on material

produced before it.”

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM No. M 6382-M of 2008

Date of decision: 16.03.2010

Krishna Devi …….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others …….Respondent(s)

Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur –

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: