Once Charges Are Framed By Trial Court, Accused Can’t Be Discharged U/S. 227 Or 216 CrPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that an application under Section 216 CrPC cannot lead to the deletion of a charge or the discharge of an accused.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the accused cannot be discharged under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC.
The Court held thus in Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which rejected the respective Petitions having found no legal infirmity in the Orders of the Trial Court arriving at the conclusion that no offence under Sections 8, 22 and 29, and under Section 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) could be said to have been made out since the psychotropic substance in question do not figure in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, 1985.
The Trial Court had ultimately transferred the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate with a direction to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”
The Bench reiterated that an application under Section 216 CrPC cannot lead to the deletion of charge or the discharge of an accused.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee and AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma appeared for the Appellants while AOR Yash Pal Dhingra appeared for the Respondents.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “While holding that an accused cannot seek a discharge under the garb of modification/alteration of charge through a Section 216 application, this Court also highlighted that it has become routine practice for the accused to file an application under Section 216 CrPC after their application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC is dismissed, sometimes in ignorance of the law but also on other occasions with the sole intent of derailing the trial.”
The Court further noted that Section 216 CrPC provides the Court with the power to do two things – One, alter a charge and two, add to a charge and nowhere, does the provision expressly or by necessary implication lead to an inference that a charge could be deleted altogether.
“No doubt, the Court is given an expansive and wide-ranging power. However, that must not mean that the powers conferred are without any limits”, it added.
Scope of Section 216 CrPC
The Court observed that under this provision, any Court is empowered to ‘alter’ or ‘add’ to any charge framed against the accused, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and, therefore, an outer time limit is set i.e. the power conferred upon the Courts cannot be exercised after a decision is pronounced in the matter.
“Although the provision does not expressly provide for the stage of the trial after which the power under Section 216 CrPC can be exercised, yet logic and rationale obviously requires it to be exercised after a charge has been framed by the Trial Court under Section 228 CrPC”, it further clarified.
The Court enunciated that as a natural corollary, if an accused has already been discharged under Section 227 CrPC, no application or action under Section 216 CrPC would be maintainable.
“The Court may alter or add to any charge either upon its own motion or on an application by the parties concerned. Therefore, such a power can be invoked by the Court suo moto as well. This power under Section 216 CrPC is exclusive to the concerned Court and no party can seek such an addition or alteration of charge as a matter of right by filing an application”, it also explained.
The Court said that it would be the Trial Court which must decide whether a proper charge has been framed or not, at the appropriate stage of the trial.
Conclusion
“We are, therefore, of the view that both the Trial Court and the High Court committed an error in holding that the offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act is not made out. The Trial Courts in both the appeals could also not have discharged/deleted the charge under the NDPS Act framed against the accused persons while disposing of an application under Section 216 CrPC. This is something not permissible within our criminal procedure and the High Court unfortunately failed to take notice of this aspect”, the Court concluded.
The Court, therefore, directed that the accused persons be tried by the Special Judge and that the Trial Courts shall proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the High Court’s Orders.
Cause Title- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 498)
