High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition Against Alteration of Charges in Electricity Act and IPC Case. Court Holds That Alteration of Charge Under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Is Permissible Before Judgment and No Prejudice Caused to Accused.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 14:05:29

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The criminal revision petition was filed by the accused No.1, Sri Shivappa, challenging the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Spl.Case No.77/2014, whereby the prosecution's application under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was allowed. The application sought to alter the charge from Section 304A (causing death by negligence) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to Section 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, and also to add a charge under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner was originally charge-sheeted along with accused No.2 for the said offences. The trial court allowed the application and framed a fresh charge on 20.07.2022. The petitioner contended that the alteration was without jurisdiction, that the court had no power to alter the charge after the commencement of trial, and that the alteration caused prejudice as the petitioner had already cross-examined some witnesses. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The court observed that Section 216 Cr.P.C. expressly empowers the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment. The court noted that the alteration was based on the same set of facts and that the petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the new charges. The court found no prejudice caused to the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's order and the charge framed on 20.07.2022.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Alteration of Charge - Section 216 Cr.P.C. - Permissibility - The trial court allowed prosecution's application to alter charge from Section 304A IPC to Section 304(II) IPC and add Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. The revision petitioner (accused No.1) contended that the alteration was without jurisdiction and caused prejudice. The High Court held that alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is permissible at any time before judgment and does not require a full-fledged inquiry. The court found no prejudice caused to the accused as the alteration was based on the same set of facts and the accused had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The revision petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)

B) Electricity Act, 2003 - Offence under Section 135(1)(a) - Theft of Electricity - The prosecution sought to add charge under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, alleging theft of electricity. The High Court held that the trial court correctly allowed the addition as the facts disclosed the offence. (Para 4)

C) Indian Penal Code - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304(II) IPC - The prosecution sought to alter charge from Section 304A (causing death by negligence) to Section 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The High Court upheld the alteration, noting that the facts of the case, involving death due to electrocution from an illegal electricity connection, could attract Section 304(II) IPC. (Para 4)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the prosecution's application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charge from Section 304A IPC to Section 304(II) IPC and add Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and whether the order dated 11.07.2022 and the consequent charge framed on 20.07.2022 are liable to be set aside.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Spl.Case No.77/2014, and the charge framed on 20.07.2022.

Law Points

Alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is permissible at any time before judgment
No requirement of fresh evidence for alteration
Prejudice to accused must be shown
Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not require a full-fledged inquiry

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 53

Criminal Revision Petition No. 100280 of 2022 (397)

2024-02-07

S.Vishwajith Shetty

Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure (for petitioner), Smt. Girija S. Hiremath (HCGP for respondent)

Sri Shivappa S/o. Arjun Hadimani @ Panchagaon

The State of Karnataka and Smt. Hanamavva D/o. Yamanappa Madar

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision petition challenging the order allowing alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (accused No.1) sought to set aside the order dated 11.07.2022 allowing the prosecution's application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and the consequent charge framed on 20.07.2022.

Filing Reason

The trial court allowed the prosecution's application to alter the charge from Section 304A IPC to Section 304(II) IPC and add Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which the petitioner contended was without jurisdiction and caused prejudice.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi) passed the order dated 11.07.2022 allowing the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and framed a fresh charge on 20.07.2022.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the prosecution's application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charge? Whether the alteration of charge caused prejudice to the accused?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to alter the charge after the commencement of trial and that the alteration caused prejudice as the petitioner had already cross-examined some witnesses. State argued that the alteration was permissible under Section 216 Cr.P.C. at any time before judgment and that no prejudice was caused as the facts remained the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the court has the power to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment. The alteration does not require a full-fledged inquiry and is permissible if no prejudice is caused to the accused. In this case, the alteration was based on the same set of facts and the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the new charges, hence no prejudice was caused.

Judgment Excerpts

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) is filed by the accused No.1 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Session Judge, Belagavi, in Spl.Case.No.77/2014, wherein the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Procedural History

The petitioner (accused No.1) was charge-sheeted along with accused No.2 for offences under Sections 304A and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court framed charges accordingly. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of the charge to Section 304(II) IPC and addition of Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The trial court allowed the application on 11.07.2022 and framed a fresh charge on 20.07.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision petition before the High Court.