Trial Court Can Exercise Power U/S 216 CrPC Suo Motu; Application By Prosecution/Accused To Alter Charges Not Maintainable: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that only a trial Court can suo moto exercise power under Section 216 Cr.P.C and it cannot be exercised at the instance of an accused or the prosecution.
The prosecution had filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charge against the accused from Section 304 Part II IPC to Section 304A IPC “at the fag end of the trial.” The said application was allowed by the trial Court.
The Court explained that “A reading of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that legislature has not provided any right for the party to make an application under this provision of law.”
Initially, a charge sheet had been filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 135(1)(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Act (K.E. Act).
The accused then filed a petition under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.
The Court remarked, “If the provision of law does not provide any specific right to the parties, such a right should not be read into the provision of law by the courts, unless the court is of the view that if such a right is not conferred on the parties, there is likelihood of failure of justice.”
While calling the abuse of legal procedure as one of the major factors for delay in disposal of cases, a Single Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed, “Providing Fast Track Court and use of Alternate Dispute Resolution, is not sufficient to reduce the burden of the Courts. The courts have to be proactive and they are not only required to dispense with unnecessary procedures but are also required to ensure that legal procedures are not abused.”
Advocate Srinand A. Pachhapure represented the petitioner, while HCGP Girija S. Hiremath appeared for the respondents.
The Court noted that “in the event the Court alters or adds to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced, the prosecution as well as the accused gets a right under Section 217 of Cr.P.C. to recall or re-summon the witnesses and in addition to the same, even further witnesses may be summoned whom the Court may think to be material after the trial is commenced.”
The Court explained that Sections 216 and 217 of Cr.P.C. provide that only the trial Court can suo moto exercise power under the law and the said power cannot be exercised at the instance of an accused or a complainant.
Section 217 of Cr.P.C. provides that whenever a charge is altered by a court after the commencement of trial, the prosecution and the accused are allowed to recall or re-summon and examine the witness with reference to the altered charges.
The Court remarked, “In the event the Court exercises its power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., then under the normal circumstance the trial is likely to be delayed for the reason that the accused and the prosecution are likely to exercise their rights provided under Section 217 of Cr.P.C.”
Consequently, the Court held that the “courts should be very conscious of this aspect of the matter” and unless the Court is satisfied that the material evidence placed before it warrants exercise of power under Section 216, the powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Sri Shivappa v. The State Of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:2742)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Srinand A. Pachhapure
Respondents: HCGP Girija S. Hiremath