Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only allows for alteration or addition of charges, not deletion of charges, and the power to alter or add a charge should not cause prejudice to the accused or the prosecutor.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27. 05. 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby his application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as 'the Code') for alteration of charge was dismissed.

( 2 ) BY an order dated 16. 04. 2005, the Special Judge, Delhi had directed the framing of charges against the petitioner and the co-accused K. K. Mishra. Another co-accused M/s Stejac Video Products (P) Ltd was discharged. The petitioner was charged on two counts. Firstly, he was charged under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Secondly, he was charged under section 420 IPC.

( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note here that no revision petition was filed against the order on charge. However, an application under Section 216 of the code was filed on 29. 05. 2005 before the learned Special Judge. The prayer made in the said application was as under:-

"it is therefore respectfully prayed this Hon'ble Court be pleased to withdraw charge under Section 420 IPC as also the charge of conspiracy under Section 120b to commit the said offence and the offences under the 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) Corruption Act and alter the charge to one under Section 417 IPC. "

( 4 ) IN the said application, it was indicated in paragraph 3 thereof that section 420 IPC was not attracted and the only charge if at all which could be framed against the petitioner was under Section 417 IPC. It was further contended that there was no evidence at all from which a conspiracy to commit the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be made out. On these grounds, the aforesaid prayer was made in the said application under Section 216 of the Code.

( 5 ) THE said application was dismissed as being premature. The learned special Judge observed as under while dismissing the said application:-

"6. It is well settled that Criminal Court has no power to review its own order. What cannot be done directly also cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. The general principles of interpretation of Statutes is that in construing a remedial statute the court ought to give to it the "widest operation which its language will permit". The words of such a statute must be so construed as "to give the most complete remedy which the phraseology will permit", so as to secure that the relief contemplated by the statute should not be denied to the class intended to be relieved". Therefore, if the powers of review are not conferred on this court by a Statute then same cannot be inferred under the garb of interpretation to the Statute. The interpretation of Statute is confined to the scope which its language will permit. "

7. Once, a Criminal Court has framed the charge, then the order of framing charge cannot be reviewed by the same court unless and until there is evidence on the record to support the addition or alteration of charge. The evidence available on the record at the time of framing the charge on 16. 4. 2005 have already been considered by the predecessor court and thereafter no further evidence has been recorded in this case. If the contention of the counsel for the accused persons is accepted, then same would amount to review of order of charge dated 16. 4. 2005 without any further evidence.

8. No doubt, erroneous and improper charge can be corrected under section 216 of the Cr. P. C. by re-framing it properly or by adding to it or altering it for an offence proveable by the evidence. Thus power to add or alter a charge is comprehensive enough for remedying defects, whether they arise out of framing of a charge or the non framing of a charge and whether they are discovered at the inception of the trial or at subsequent stage of the trial, prior to pronouncement of Judgment. I am fortified in my view by Judgments in case of st