Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against an order passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.C.No.135/2013. The respondent, Sri Galli Janardhan Reddy, a former Minister of Karnataka, was the first accused in a case relating to illegal mining and corruption. The trial court had initially framed charges against the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but had omitted to frame a charge under Section 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust by a public servant). Subsequently, the CBI filed an application under Section 216 CrPC to add the charge under Section 409 IPC, which was allowed by the trial court on 15.09.2018. However, the accused then filed an application under Section 216 CrPC to drop that charge, which was allowed by the trial court on 18.09.2018, leading to the CBI filing the present revision petitions. The High Court examined the scope of Section 216 CrPC, which empowers the court to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment. The court noted that the ingredients of Section 409 IPC are distinct from those of Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), and the omission to frame a charge under Section 409 IPC was a curable defect. The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the application to drop the charge, as the accused failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would warrant such a course. The court also held that the revision petitions were maintainable as the impugned order was interlocutory but caused grave injustice. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order dated 18.09.2018, and restored the charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Alteration of Charge - Section 216 CrPC - Power to alter or add charge - The court has wide power to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment, and the omission to frame a charge under a particular section is a curable defect. The trial court erred in allowing the application to drop the charge under Section 409 IPC after having earlier added it, as the ingredients of Section 409 IPC are distinct from Section 120B IPC and the accused failed to show any prejudice. (Paras 10-15) B) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant - Section 409 IPC - Applicability to public servants - Section 409 IPC applies to public servants who commit criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to them. The charge under Section 409 IPC can be added even if the accused is already charged under Section 120B IPC, as the two offences are distinct and can coexist. (Paras 12-14) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC - The CBI's revision against the order dropping the charge under Section 409 IPC is maintainable as the order was interlocutory in nature but caused grave injustice and was passed without jurisdiction. The High Court can interfere in revision to correct a patent error. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application under Section 216 CrPC filed by the accused to drop the charge under Section 409 IPC after it had been added by the court earlier, and whether the CBI's revision against that order is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the trial court, and restored the charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 216 CrPC allows alteration or addition of charge at any time before judgment
- Section 409 IPC criminal breach of trust by public servant
- distinction between Sections 409 and 120B IPC
- charge framing stage is not a trial
- prejudice to accused must be shown
