JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P.No.12926 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.04 of 2011 dated 11.10.2023.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P.No.12926 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.04 of 2011 dated 11.10.2023, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to alter the charges framed against the accused and proceed further according to law in Spl.C.C.No.04 of 2011.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. The first petitioner/A1-Ramamoorthy was temporarily deputed to the office of Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Pochampalli for about two hours daily in the morning and was working as Technical Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Pochampalli and entrusted to prepare estimates for free Agricultural Electricity connections in the office of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Pochampalli. While that being so, on 18.04.2009 one Palaniammal has given an application for obtaining electricity connection and at that time A1 has demanded a sum of Rs.400/- as bribe for effecting electricity connection and to fix an electric meter and thereby, A1 had committed an offence under Section 7 read with 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby, the first charge against him.

2.2. The second petitioner/A2-Sudhakar is not a public servant and that the second charge against him is that he being the son-in-law of A1 abetted A1 to receive bribe and thereby charged under Section 7 r/w 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 of IPC.

2.3. The third charge framed against A1 is that by misusing his official position, he had received a sum of Rs.300/- as bribe from one Balakrishnan at his office on 22.04.2009 and handed over the same to A2 and thereby, A1 had committed an offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.4. The fourth charge framed against A2 is that in continuation of the same, A2 knowing that the said amount of Rs.300/- was bribe amount received from Balakrishnan as illegal, received the same from A1 and committed an offence u/s13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 109 of IPC.

2.5. Now, the trial has commenced and when the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.15-the Investigating Officer, the petitioners had filed the petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C., to alter the charges framed against the accused and proceed further according to law in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2011.

2.6. The averments in the petition filed by the petitioners is that the first accused was charged u/s 7 r/w 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the second accused was charged under Section 7 r/w 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 of IPC. Admittedly,when A2 is not a public servant, who came to the office of A1 to inform about the illness of his wife, who was admitted in the hospital and his name also does not find place in the FIR, the charges framed against him u/s 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) will not attract. The further averment in the petition is that both Sections 109 IPC and 12 of PC Act are one and the same and when there is no express provision made for abetment only section 109 IPC is applicable and in this case, charges framed under both Section 109 IPC and Section 12 of PC Act, will cause great prejudice to the accused and sought to alter the charges framed against them.

2.7. The respondent had filed counter contending that if any incorrect charges are framed against A2 the Court may at its exclusive discretion, if necessary, alter the charges before pronouncing the judgment and in the instant case, P.W.15-Investigating Officer was already cro