Back
KAMALUDHEEN, S/O. MUHAMMED MUSTAFA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA – Respondent
ORDER :
C. Jayachandran, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is preferred by accused nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No.270 of 2016 on the files of the Special Court, Muvattupuzha. The petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-V order which allowed C.M.P. No.882 of 2018 preferred by the Public Prosecutor seeking alteration of charge under Section 216, Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would first submit that no sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. has been obtained to alter the charge with respect to the offence under Sections 468 and 420 of the Penal Code. This submission was met by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) by pointing out that the petitioners are not persons removable from their office, except with the sanction of the Government. Petitioners 1 and 2 (accused nos.2 and 3) were Forest Range Officers, whose appointing authority is the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, wherefore, the sanction of the Government is not required for their removal from office. Learned Public Prosecutor would also point out that, in Annexure-R(a) sanction or
The court affirmed that while a Prosecutor can alert the court to charge deficiencies, only the court can alter charges, ensuring no prejudice to the accused.
The power to alter the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive to the Court and can be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The alteration must be founded on material availa....
The power to alter or add any charge 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.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving knowledge of bribery for conviction under the PC Act and the importance of procedural fairness in charge alterations.
The power to add or alter charges under Section 216(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised in appropriate cases in the interest of justice. There must be sufficient materials on record....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction limits intervention in Trial Court decisions unless there is a clear error or injustice, especially regarding the framing of charges under the Criminal Proced....
The trial Court can alter charges under Section 216 CrPC, and such alteration does not equate to deletion, allowing the trial to proceed under the new charge.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
(1) Alteration of charge – At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C., trial court must satisfy : itself that there exists convincing material and grounds to alter existing cha....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
