advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Sec.216 Cr.P.C. - Supplementary /additional charge sheet after investigation on absconded accused for 15 years after his arrest - after completion of trial - TADA court dismissed the application - Apex court held that The Designated Court failed to appreciate that the supplementary charge-sheet dated 17.11.2008 filed against the respondent accused was in continuation of the original charge-sheet filed on 4.11.1993 and the list of witnesses annexed to the supplementary charge-sheet was shown as list of additional witnesses. Further, the entire material available at that time, which led to the framing of charges during abscondance of the respondent accused and other accused persons, is available to the prosecution to be used against the respondent at the stage of charge or at the stage of modification of the charge.Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. = C.B.I. .. Appellant Versus Karimullah Osan Khan .. Respondent = 2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41282

Sec.216 Cr.P.C. - Supplementary /additional charge sheet after investigation on absconded accused for 15 years after his arrest - after completion of trial - TADA court dismissed the application - Apex court held that The  Designated  Court  failed  to appreciate that  the  supplementary  charge-sheet  dated  17.11.2008  filed against the respondent accused was in continuation of the original  charge-sheet filed  on  4.11.1993  and  the  list  of  witnesses  annexed  to  the supplementary charge-sheet was  shown  as  list  of  additional  witnesses. Further, the entire material available at  that  time,  which  led  to  the framing of charges during abscondance of the respondent accused  and  other accused persons, is available to the prosecution to  be  used  against  the respondent at the stage of charge or at the stage of  modification  of  the
charge.Consequently, the impugned order is set  aside. =

a  series  of bomb blasts on 12.3.1993, 
whereby 257 persons were killed, 713  persons  got
injured and   extensive  damage  to  properties  worth  approximately  Rs.27
crores was caused.  The State Police  registered  27  criminal  cases.    On
4.11.1993, a single charge-sheet was filed in the Designated  Court  against
189 accused persons, of which 44 were shown  as  absconding.   Investigation
from the State Police was transferred to  CBI  on  19.11.1993  and  the  CBI
registered Case Crime No. RC  1  (S)/93/STF/BB.      CBI,  later,  submitted
supplementary reports before the Designated Court under Section 173(8)  CrPC
and the case was registered as Court Case No.  BBC-1  of  1993.   Permission
for further investigation was obtained by the CBI from the Designated  Court
on 25.11.1993.  During the course of investigation, the involvement  of  the
respondent accused, by name Karimullah Osan Khan, was disclosed and  efforts
were made to arrest him.  The Designated Court issued  proclamation  against
him and, on 5.8.1994, he was declared as  a  proclaimed  offender.    Later,
the Designated Court, on 8.9.1994, issued warrant of arrest against him.=
Respondent accused No. 193, who was absconding was,  later,  arrested
in Mumbai on 22.8.2008, and was remanded to the police custody and  further
investigation was carried on.  During further investigation, the respondent
accused made a confession which was recorded under Section 15 of  the  TADA
Act, wherein he had admitted his role in the criminal conspiracy, for which
the above mentioned common charges  had  been  framed.   On  completion  of
investigation, a supplementary  charge-sheet  dated  17.11.2008  was  filed
against the respondent accused for offence of criminal conspiracy  as  well
as the offence punishable under Section 3(3)  of  TADA  Act  and  lists  of
additional witnesses and additional documents were enclosed along with  the
supplementary charge-sheet.   On  1.1.2009,  the  Designated  Court  framed
charge of conspiracy against the respondent accused under Section 120-B IPC
read with Section 3(3) of TADA Act but, it is the statement  of  CBI,  that
inadvertently the original charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 3(2)
of TADA Act read with Section 120-B IPC and other offences applicable  were
not mentioned.  On 3.2.2009, the evidence was closed  by  the  CBI  and  on
6.2.2009, the statement of the respondent accused was  recorded.   CBI,  as
already indicated, filed an application on 26.2.2009 under Section 216 CrPC
for alteration of charge  by  addition  of  the  charges  punishable  under
Section 302 IPC and other charges under the IPC and the Explosives Act read
with Section 120-B IPC and Section 3(2) of the TADA  Act.   The  Designated
Court, on 28.4.2009, rejected the application filed  by  the  CBI,  against
which this appeal has been preferred.
the legality of the order  passed
by the Designated Court under TADA  (P)  Act,  1987  for  Bomb  Blast  Case,
Greater Bombay, rejecting the application filed by  the  Central  Bureau  of
Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) under Section 216 of the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for addition of the  charges  punishable  under
Section 302 and other charges under the Indian Penal Code (for short  ‘IPC’)
and the Explosives Act read with Section 120-B IPC and  also  under  Section
3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987  (for
short ‘TADA Act’).=

Section 216 CrPC gives considerable powers to the Trial  Court,  that
is, even after the completion of evidence, arguments heard and the judgment
reserved, it can alter and  add  any  charge,  subject  to  the  conditions
mentioned therein. The expressions “at any time” and before  the  “judgment
is pronounced” would indicate that the  power  is  very  wide  and  can  be
exercised, in appropriate cases, in the interest of  justice,  but  at  the
same time, the Courts should also see that its orders would not  cause  any
prejudice to the accused.-
The  Designated  Court  failed  to
appreciate that  the  supplementary  charge-sheet  dated  17.11.2008  filed
against the respondent accused was in continuation of the original  charge-
sheet filed  on  4.11.1993  and  the  list  of  witnesses  annexed  to  the
supplementary charge-sheet was  shown  as  list  of  additional  witnesses.
Further, the entire material available at  that  time,  which  led  to  the
framing of charges during abscondance of the respondent accused  and  other
accused persons, is available to the prosecution to  be  used  against  the
respondent at the stage of charge or at the stage of  modification  of  the
charge.
Consequently, the impugned order is set  aside.   The  application
preferred by CBI under  Section  216  CrPC  would  stand  allowed  and  the
Designated Court is directed to further proceed with the case in accordance
with law.  Ordered accordingly.

19.   The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

  2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41282
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, VIKRAMAJIT SEN
                                                                REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1127 OF 2009

C.B.I.                                       .. Appellant
                                   Versus
Karimullah Osan Khan                    .. Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.    We are, in this case, concerned with the legality of the order  passed
by the Designated Court under TADA  (P)  Act,  1987  for  Bomb  Blast  Case,
Greater Bombay, rejecting the application filed by  the  Central  Bureau  of
Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) under Section 216 of the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for addition of the  charges  punishable  under
Section 302 and other charges under the Indian Penal Code (for short  ‘IPC’)
and the Explosives Act read with Section 120-B IPC and  also  under  Section
3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987  (for
short ‘TADA Act’).


2.    The city of Mumbai and its surrounding areas  witnessed  a  series  of
bomb blasts on 12.3.1993, whereby 257 persons were killed, 713  persons  got
injured and   extensive  damage  to  properties  worth  approximately  Rs.27
crores was caused.  The State Police  registered  27  criminal  cases.    On
4.11.1993, a single charge-sheet was filed in the Designated  Court  against
189 accused persons, of which 44 were shown  as  absconding.   Investigation
from the State Police was transferred to  CBI  on  19.11.1993  and  the  CBI
registered Case Crime No. RC  1  (S)/93/STF/BB.      CBI,  later,  submitted
supplementary reports before the Designated Court under Section 173(8)  CrPC
and the case was registered as Court Case No.  BBC-1  of  1993.   Permission
for further investigation was obtained by the CBI from the Designated  Court
on 25.11.1993.  During the course of investigation, the involvement  of  the
respondent accused, by name Karimullah Osan Khan, was disclosed and  efforts
were made to arrest him.  The Designated Court issued  proclamation  against
him and, on 5.8.1994, he was declared as  a  proclaimed  offender.    Later,
the Designated Court, on 8.9.1994, issued warrant of arrest against him.


3.    The Designated Court framed a common charge of criminal conspiracy  on
10.4.1995 against all the accused persons present before the Court and  also
against the absconding accused persons, including the respondent  -  accused
No. 193 and all other unknown persons, under the following Sections:
      “1.   Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120(B) of IPC r/w
           section 3(2) (i) (ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987
           and r/w Section 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201  and  212
           of IPC.
      2.    Section 3 and 7 r/w Section 25(1A), [1B(a)]  of  the  Arms  Act,
           1959.
      3.    Section 9-B (1),(a),(b),(c) of the Explosives Act 1884.
      4.    Section 3, 4(a), (b), 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances  Act,
           1908.
      5.    Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The Designated Court then issued an order dated 19.6.1995  for  examination
of the witnesses, including the absconding accused  no.193,  in  accordance
with the provisions contained in Section 299 CrPC.

4.    Respondent accused No. 193, who was absconding was,  later,  arrested
in Mumbai on 22.8.2008, and was remanded to the police custody and  further
investigation was carried on.  During further investigation, the respondent
accused made a confession which was recorded under Section 15 of  the  TADA
Act, wherein he had admitted his role in the criminal conspiracy, for which
the above mentioned common charges  had  been  framed.   On  completion  of
investigation, a supplementary  charge-sheet  dated  17.11.2008  was  filed
against the respondent accused for offence of criminal conspiracy  as  well
as the offence punishable under Section 3(3)  of  TADA  Act  and  lists  of
additional witnesses and additional documents were enclosed along with  the
supplementary charge-sheet.   On  1.1.2009,  the  Designated  Court  framed
charge of conspiracy against the respondent accused under Section 120-B IPC
read with Section 3(3) of TADA Act but, it is the statement  of  CBI,  that
inadvertently the original charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 3(2)
of TADA Act read with Section 120-B IPC and other offences applicable  were
not mentioned.  On 3.2.2009, the evidence was closed  by  the  CBI  and  on
6.2.2009, the statement of the respondent accused was  recorded.   CBI,  as
already indicated, filed an application on 26.2.2009 under Section 216 CrPC
for alteration of charge  by  addition  of  the  charges  punishable  under
Section 302 IPC and other charges under the IPC and the Explosives Act read
with Section 120-B IPC and Section 3(2) of the TADA  Act.   The  Designated
Court, on 28.4.2009, rejected the application filed  by  the  CBI,  against
which this appeal has been preferred.

5.    The Designated Court framed the following points while examining  the
application preferred by the CBI:
     A)     Is there any evidence existing on record to add further charges
        against the accused for agreeing to commit the  terrorist  acts  by
        use of explosive substances at various places  in  Mumbai  and  for
        that purpose bringing the arms to Indian shore  in  furtherance  of
        the implementation of the criminal conspiracy?
     B)     Is there any evidence on record to add charges of causing death
        and attempt to cause death, injuries to human bodies  and  loss  to
        properties during commission of terrorist acts by use of  explosive
        substances?
     C)     Whether the charges as alleged deserve to be altered and  added
        as prayed?


6.    In support of the application, CBI highlighted the following grounds:
     1)     Conspiracy  was  hatched  to  cause  communal  disturbance  and
        destabilizing  the  Government.   Huge   quantity   of   arms   and
        ammunitions was smuggled into India by the accused persons and used
        at different places in Mumbai.  27 cases were registered and single
        charge-sheet came to be filed against 189 accused  persons  in  the
        Designated Court, out of which 44 accused were shown as  absconding
        in the said case No. BBC 1/1993.
     2)     The Designated Court framed charges for conspiracy on 10.4.1995
        against the accused persons who were  present  before  it  at  that
        time, as well as against the respondent accused  whose  involvement
        was disclosed  and  charge  was  also  framed  against  him,  being
        absconding accused.
     3)     The prosecution moved an application M.A. 139/94 under  Section
        299 CrPC and the Court granted the liberty to join  the  absconding
        accused in the trial whenever he is arrested and the said  evidence
        was also recorded under Section 299  CrPC  against  the  respondent
        accused vide order dated 19.6.1995.
     4)     The prosecution adduced evidence to show  that  the  respondent
        was deeply involved in the criminal conspiracy which was hatched by
        the accused persons to commit various terrorist activities and  the
        respondent accused  actively  participated  in  the  said  criminal
        conspiracy.
     5)     Mohd. Usman, who was  an  approver,  was  examined  for  charge
        punishable under Section 120-B IPC and the said witness  identified
        the respondent and also narrated his role in  landing  of  arms  by
        other co-accused for the prime accused Tiger  Memon.   Further,  it
        was  pointed  out  that  the  accused  had  participated   in   the
        conspiratorial meeting held by Memon before proceeding for  landing
        work.
     6)    The accused also aided the main accused  twice  in  the  landing
        operations and also in smuggling of various arms and ammunitions in
        Mumbai.  Further, the  respondent  had  also  confessed  about  his
        participation in  landing  arms  and  also  about  his  fleeing  to
        Pakistan to escape from clutches of law.
     7)     The confession made by him was proved by witnesses SP Mr. Sujit
        Pandey and Dy. S.P. Mr. Tyagi and that the confession was voluntary
        and is admissible in evidence, when read along with the  confession
        of others.


7.    Defence opposed the prayer for alteration of charges stating that the
same would prejudice the accused and the intention is to  delay  the  trial
proceedings and to see that the accused languishes in  jail.   Further,  it
was pointed out that the abscondance is not  a  ground  for  alteration  of
charges.   Further, it was also stated that the prosecution  is  trying  to
compel the court to appreciate the entire evidence at the fag  end  of  the
trial and pointed out that  even  the  evidence  already  adduced  required
corroboration. The evidence already recorded, it was pointed out, would not
show that the respondent was a party to the criminal conspiracy and that he
had committed any act described by Section 3(2) of TADA Act.   Further,  it
was also pointed out that the order passed by  the  Court  on  6.2.2009  in
respect of other accused persons has no bearing when an  application  under
Section 216 CrPC is being examined, which has to be examined independently,
on the basis of the materials available in that case.


8.    We heard Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor  General,
appearing for the appellant  and  Shri  Satbir  Pillania,  learned  counsel
appearing for the respondent,  at  length.    Learned  counsel  highlighted
their respective stand placing reliance on the materials already on  record
as well as on the interpretation of Section 216 CrPC.


9.    We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the scope  of  Section
216 CrPC and the power of the Court to alter or add to the  charge  at  any
time before judgment is pronounced.   We may point out that  the  following
are the reasons given by the Designated Court in rejecting the application:
     a)     The application is moved after closure of evidence and there is
        delay in the matter.
     b)     The charge could not be framed against absconding Respondent.
     c)     The order dated 06.2.2009 in SLP (Crl.) No. 569/2009 titled CBI
        V. Abu Salem Ansari &  Anr.  and  order  dated  02.12.2008  of  the
        Designated Court is final, and charges against the Respondent  were
        distinct.
     d)     The voluntariness of the confession of the Respondent has to be
        tested in law at Trial Court.
     e)     The evidence of Mohd. Usman Ahmed Jan Khan is not adequate.
     f)     There is no sufficient material on record to indicate that  the
        accused can be charged for being member of the criminal  conspiracy
        and it is not the case of prosecution that the accused himself took
        any active part in commission of any terrorist act as were done  by
        other accused who are already charged and convicted for  individual
        acts in earlier Trial BBC 1/93.
     g)     The delay in pursuing proper remedies at appropriate  time  has
        become the order of the day on the part of  the  prosecution  which
        cannot be appreciated.
     h)     Still there is no material to indicate  that  the  accused  was
        member of any such assembly which had agreed  to  commit  terrorist
        acts in Mumbai or anywhere else.  Even  no  shred  of  any  earlier
        piece of evidence or witness is cited in the charge  sheet  nor  is
        the statement of any witnesses annexed therewith.


10.   We may have to examine whether the  reasons  stated  above  would  be
sufficient enough to reject the application filed by CBI under Section  216
CrPC.   As already pointed out, initially, the investigation was started by
the State Police and, later, it was entrusted to CBI and it was during  the
investigation by CBI that the involvement of  the  respondent  accused  was
disclosed on 5.8.1994 and a warrant of arrest and proclamation  was  issued
against him.  On 19.6.1995, the Designated Court permitted  examination  of
witnesses, in which the respondent’s name was also recorded but,  since  he
was absconding, he could not be examined.  7 accused persons, including the
respondent, who were absconding, were later arrested on various days and as
against 6 absconding accused persons trials proceeded based on the  charges
framed by the Designated Court, as originally contemplated.  However,  only
against the respondent, with same materials in hand,  charges  were  framed
distinctly without invoking Section 3(2) of TADA Act read with Section 120-
B IPC and other  provisions  of  IPC.    The  Designated  Court  failed  to
appreciate that  the  supplementary  charge-sheet  dated  17.11.2008  filed
against the respondent accused was in continuation of the original  charge-
sheet filed  on  4.11.1993  and  the  list  of  witnesses  annexed  to  the
supplementary charge-sheet was  shown  as  list  of  additional  witnesses.
Further, the entire material available at  that  time,  which  led  to  the
framing of charges during abscondance of the respondent accused  and  other
accused persons, is available to the prosecution to  be  used  against  the
respondent at the stage of charge or at the stage of  modification  of  the
charge.

11.   Apart from the above factual situation, it should be remembered  that
it is a case where the respondent accused was absconding for about 15 years
and, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to that of  the  prosecution
alone and, it is in the above circumstances, we have to examine whether the
application filed under Section 216 CrPC, could be rejected.   Section  216
CrPC reads as follows :
           “216.  (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.”




12.   This Court in Jasvinder Saini and others v. State (Government of  NCT
of Delhi)  (2013) 7 SCC 256, had  an  occasion  to  examine  the  scope  of
Section 216 CrPC and held as follows:

           “11.. …… the court’s  power  to  alter  or  add  any  charge  is
      unrestrained provided such addition and/or alteration is  made  before
      the judgment is pronounced. Sub-sections (2) to  (5)  of  Section  216
      deal with the procedure to be followed once the court decides to alter
      or add any charge. Section 217 of the Code deals with  the  recall  of
      witnesses when the charge is altered  or  added  by  the  court  after
      commencement of the trial. There can, in the light of the above, be no
      doubt about the competence of the court to add or alter  a  charge  at
      any time before the judgment. The circumstances in which such addition
      or alteration may be made are not, however, stipulated in Section 216.
      It is all the same trite that the question of  any  such  addition  or
      alternation would generally arise either because the court  finds  the
      charge already framed to be defective for any [pic]reason  or  because
      such addition is considered necessary after the  commencement  of  the
      trial having regard to the evidence that may come before the court.

           12. In the case at hand the evidence assembled in the course  of
      the investigation and presented to  the  trial  court  was  not  found
      sufficient to call for framing a charge under Section 302 IPC. …..”



13.   The Privy Council, as early as in Thakur Shah v. Emperor AIR 1943  PC
192, spoke on alteration or addition of charges as follows :

      “The alteration or addition is  always,  of  course,  subject  to  the
      limitation that no course should be  taken  by  reason  of  which  the
      accused may be prejudiced either because he is not fully aware of  the
      charge made or is not given full opportunity of meeting it and putting
      forward any defence open to him on the charge finally preferred.”


14.   Section 216 CrPC gives considerable powers to the Trial  Court,  that
is, even after the completion of evidence, arguments heard and the judgment
reserved, it can alter and  add  any  charge,  subject  to  the  conditions
mentioned therein. The expressions “at any time” and before  the  “judgment
is pronounced” would indicate that the  power  is  very  wide  and  can  be
exercised, in appropriate cases, in the interest of  justice,  but  at  the
same time, the Courts should also see that its orders would not  cause  any
prejudice to the accused.

15.   Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all  Courts,  including  the
designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge  framed  earlier,  at  any
time before  the  judgment  is  pronounced  and  Sub-Sections  (2)  to  (5)
prescribe the procedure which has to be followed  after  that  addition  or
alteration.  Needless to say, the Courts can exercise the power of addition
or modification of charges under Section 216 CrPC, only when  there  exists
some material before the Court, which has some connection or link with  the
charges  sought  to  be  amended,  added  or  modified.   In  other  words,
alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out  by  the
evidence recorded during the  course  of  trial  before  the  Court.   (See
Harihar Chakravarty v. State of  West  Bengal  AIR  1954  SC  266.   Merely
because the charges are altered after conclusion of the trial, that  itself
will not lead to the conclusion that it has resulted in  prejudice  to  the
accused because sufficient safeguards have been built  in  in  Section  216
CrPC and other related provisions.

16.   We may point out, so far as  the  present  case  is  concerned,  with
regard to the incident occurred  on  12.3.1993  (Bombay  blast),  trial  in
respect of 123 accused persons had been concluded, out of which 100 persons
were convicted by the Designated Court and this  Court  vide  its  judgment
recorded on 21.3.2013 confirmed the conviction of 98 accused persons in the
following cases:

      i.    Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra cited as
           2013 (4) SCALE 1;

      ii.   Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan  vs.  State  of  Maharashtra
           cited as 2013 (4) SCALE 207;

      iii.  Ahmed  Shah  Khan  Durrani  @  A.S.  Mubarak  S.  vs.  State  of
           Maharashtra cited as 2013 (4) SCALE 272;

      iv.   State of Maharashtra vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul cited  as  2013  (4)
           SCALE 401; and

      v.    Sanjay Dutt (A-117) vs. The State  of  Maharashtra  through  CBI
           (STF), Bombay cited as 2013 (4) SCALE 462.”


17.   Taking note of all those aspects and the fact that the respondent was
declared as a proclaimed offender and was absconding for more than 15 years
and sufficient materials are already on record  and  all  elements  of  the
crime are interconnected and interrelated, the Court cannot simply  discard
the confession made by him on 27.8.2008  during  investigation,  which  was
recorded under Section 15 of TADA Act, wherein he had admitted his role  in
the criminal conspiracy, of course, that has to be dealt with in accordance
with law.  Following that, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed against
the respondent accused for offence of criminal conspiracy as  well  as  for
offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA Act and a list of additional
witnesses and documents was  enclosed  with  that.   The  Designated  Court
framed charge of criminal conspiracy against the respondent  under  Section
120-B IPC read with Section  3(3)  of  TADA  Act  but,  inadvertently,  the
original charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 3(2) of TADA Act  read
with Section 120-B and other offences, was not mentioned.


18.   Looking into all those aspects, in our view, this is a fit case where
the Court ought to have exercised its powers under  Section  216  CrPC  and
allowed the application dated 26.12.2009 filed by  CBI  for  alteration  of
charge.  Consequently, the impugned order is set  aside.   The  application
preferred by CBI under  Section  216  CrPC  would  stand  allowed  and  the
Designated Court is directed to further proceed with the case in accordance
with law.  Ordered accordingly.

19.   The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.



                                       eard Hear…………………………J.
                                       (K. S. Radhakrishnan)




                                       .….……………………J.
                                       (Vikramajit Sen)
New Delhi,
March 4, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.