Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for K. Ravi VS State Of Tamil Nadu...

K. Ravi VS State Of Tamil Nadu - 2024 6 Supreme 474 : Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is an enabling provision that allows the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. It does not grant the accused the right to file a fresh application seeking discharge after the charge has been framed, especially when a prior application under Section 227 has already been dismissed. The section also mandates that any alteration or addition to a charge must follow the procedure laid down therein.Checking relevance for C. B. I. VS Karimullah Osan Khan...

C. B. I. VS Karimullah Osan Khan - 2014 2 Supreme 321 : 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. The power is wide and can be exercised in appropriate cases in the interest of justice, provided there exists material before the Court that has a connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added, or modified, and the alteration or addition must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the trial. The Court must ensure that such an order does not cause prejudice to the accused.Checking relevance for Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha VS State of Haryana...

Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha VS State of Haryana - 2016 2 Supreme 385 : Section 216 CrPC allows the trial court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced, provided the alteration or addition is founded on material on record, complaint, FIR, accompanying documents, or material brought on record during the trial. The court must ensure no prejudice is caused to the accused and that the accused gets a fair trial. The power under Section 216 CrPC is wide and can be exercised in the interest of justice, but only when there exists some material before the court that has a connection or link with the charge sought to be amended. The addition or modification of a charge must be based on evidence recorded during the trial or material already on record. The court may exercise this power even after the completion of evidence and arguments, as long as the judgment has not been pronounced.Checking relevance for P. Kartikalakshmi VS Ganesh...

P. Kartikalakshmi VS Ganesh - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1088 : Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive to the Court and not available as a right to any party, including the accused, complainant, or prosecution. No party has a vested right to seek addition or alteration of a charge, as such a course would jeopardize the concept of speedy trial and make it nearly impossible for the criminal court to conclude proceedings. The Court may exercise this power on its own initiative when necessary, but parties cannot file applications to invoke this provision as a matter of right.Checking relevance for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence VS Raj Kumar Arora...

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence VS Raj Kumar Arora - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 644 : Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 239 of BNSS) empowers any court to ''''alter'''' or ''''add to'''' any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The power cannot be exercised after judgment is pronounced. The court may alter a charge by varying an existing charge to make a different charge, but cannot delete a charge or discharge an accused. The power is exclusive to the court and cannot be used as a substitute for an application under Section 227 CrPC for discharge. The court must ensure no prejudice is caused to the accused and must inform them of any alteration or addition to the charge.

• Section 216 CrPC - Power to Alter or Add Charges Main points: Section 216 grants the court the authority to alter or add any charge at any stage before the judgment is pronounced. This power is vested solely in the court, not the prosecution or the accused, and can be exercised at any time prior to judgment if sufficient material is available. The section emphasizes that amendments are part of the court’s inherent powers to ensure justice. Amrinder Pal Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana, Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - Kerala, Avdhesh Alias Avdhesh Kumar VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow, U. P. - Allahabad Analysis and Conclusion: The power under Section 216 is wide-ranging and primarily judicial, intended to prevent miscarriage of justice by allowing the court to modify charges as needed. It cannot be invoked by parties through applications but is an inherent judicial power exercised by the court itself. The section does not permit the court to delete charges once framed, nor does it allow parties to seek amendments independently. K. Munivahini VS K. Chakrapani - Crimes, Shivappa S/o. Arjun Hadimani @ Panchagaon VS State Of Karnataka - Karnataka, K. Munivahini VS K. Chakrapani - Karnataka

• Scope and Limitations of Section 216 Main points: Amendments or alterations must occur before the pronouncement of judgment. The section does not confer a right on the prosecution or accused to initiate amendments; rather, it is a judicial power exercised suo motu or on the court’s initiative. The courts have held that this power is wide but limited to adding or altering charges, not deleting them once framed. State of Kerala VS Azeez S/o Muhammed - Kerala, Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Crimes, 00500054636 Analysis and Conclusion: The courts have consistently interpreted Section 216 as a provision that empowers the court to modify charges to serve justice, but within the bounds of the law. It is not a procedural tool for parties to unilaterally change charges, and its exercise is at the court’s discretion before judgment. The section’s intent is to facilitate fair trial proceedings by allowing necessary amendments.

• Judicial Jurisprudence and Case Law Main points: Courts have recognized the broad power of Section 216, including during ongoing trials, as long as it is before judgment. The Supreme Court has clarified that the power is wide but must be exercised judiciously, ensuring that amendments do not prejudice the accused’s rights. Cases like Nallapareddy and others reaffirm that the court’s discretion is paramount, and amendments should be made to uphold substantive justice. Avdhesh Alias Avdhesh Kumar VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow, U. P. - Allahabad, Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - Kerala Analysis and Conclusion: The jurisprudence underscores that Section 216 is a vital judicial tool to correct or adapt charges, but it must be exercised carefully, respecting the rights of accused and ensuring transparency (e.g., explaining amendments to the accused). The courts have rejected attempts by parties to invoke this power through applications, emphasizing its judicial nature.