Case Note & Summary
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed three criminal revision petitions challenging orders 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 1st accused in a case involving alleged illegal mining and misappropriation of public property. The trial court had framed charges including under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (criminal breach of trust by a public servant). Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to drop the charge under Section 409 IPC. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 15.09.2018 (in Crl.RP No.1058/2019) and also passed a similar order on 18.09.2018 (in Crl.RP No.1059/2019) and another related order. The CBI challenged these orders on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to drop a charge after framing, as Section 216 CrPC only permits alteration or addition of charges, not deletion. The High Court examined the scope of Section 216 CrPC and held that it does not empower the court to drop a charge after it has been framed, as that would amount to a review of its own order, which is not permissible under the CrPC. The court further held that the ingredients of Section 409 IPC were prima facie made out against the respondent, who was a public servant entrusted with property. The trial court's finding that there was no entrustment was erroneous at the stage of charge. The High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and restored the charge under Section 409 IPC against the respondent. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Alteration of Charge - Section 216 CrPC - Scope - Section 216 CrPC permits alteration or addition of charge, but does not empower the court to drop a charge after it has been framed, as that would amount to review of its own order, which is not permissible under the Code. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the application under Section 216 CrPC to drop the charge under Section 409 IPC. (Paras 10-15) B) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant - Section 409 IPC - Prima Facie Case - Where the accused, a public servant, was entrusted with property (mining leases) and allegedly misappropriated the same, the ingredients of Section 409 IPC are prima facie made out. The trial court's finding that no entrustment was proved was erroneous at the stage of charge. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC - Interference - The High Court in revision can interfere if the trial court's order is perverse, illegal, or suffers from jurisdictional error. The impugned order dropping the charge was set aside as it was without jurisdiction. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could, under Section 216 of CrPC, drop the charge under Section 409 IPC after having framed it, and whether the order dropping the charge was legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated 15.09.2018 and 18.09.2018 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.C.No.135/2013, and restored the charge under Section 409 IPC against the respondent. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 216 CrPC cannot be used to drop charges after framing
- trial court cannot review its own order
- Section 409 IPC prima facie made out against public servant for criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted as public servant
