Bombay High Court
Arif Ali S/O Yusuf Ali Sayyed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 November, 2012
1 crwp699.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2012
Arif Ali s/o Yusuf Ali Sayyed,
age 39 years, occ. Service,
R/o 32-A, Avishkar Colony,
Chalisgaon Road, Dhule ...Petitioner
ig [Orig. Accused]
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Dhule ...Respondent
.....
Shri K.C.Sant, advocate for the petitioner
Shri B.J.Sonawane, A.P.P. for the respondent
.....
CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 23.10.2012
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT
OF THE JUDGMENT : 02.11.2012
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::
2 crwp699.12
ORAL JUDGMENT : -
1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
3] The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhule below application Exh. 54 in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 on 12.7.2012 be quashed and set aside.
4] The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is as follows :-
The petitioner is the original accused in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 and is being tried therein for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the learned Special ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 3 crwp699.12 Judge, Dhule.
The petitioner is a police constable and it is alleged that the petitioner demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.
70,000/- from one Biharilal Punamchand Agrawal as reward to return the documents and key of complainant's goods carriage Truck bearing No. MH-18/M-8222 and he allegedly obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing the position as a public servant. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint, the prosecution is initiated against the petitioner and case was registered against him under Special Case No. 19 of 2011 and copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Biharilal Punamchand Agrawal is annexed at Exh. 'A'.
5] The charge against the accused was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 15.3.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The copy of the said charge is annexed at Exh.'B'. Thereafter, the prosecution led it's evidence and evidence of prosecution was closed on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 4 crwp699.12 5.4.2012. Thereafter, defence witnesses were also examined and the said case was posted on 11.4.2012 for arguments.
However, thereafter the said case was adjourned from time to time on one or the other pretext and it was adjourned to 7.5.2012, on which date the petitioner/accused, filed his written arguments, copy thereof is annexed at Exh.'C'.
6] Thereafter, learned A.P.P. sought adjournments for arguments on 17.5.2012 and on 20.5.2012 and the matter was adjourned to 11.6.2012 for arguments. However, on 11.6.2012, learned A.P.P. preferred application Exh.54 and requested the learned trial court to alter the charge by adding the word 'motive' before the word 'reward' in the said charge, which remained to be mentioned inadvertently in the said charge.
Copy of the said application is annexed at Exh.'D'.
7] Learned trial court obtained the reply/say of the petitioner herein which was filed by him at Exh.55 and thereby opposed the said application vehemently contending that the petitioner has also filed written arguments and the defence of the petitioner was made open, and hence, the respondent has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 5 crwp699.12 preferred the afore said application to fill in lacuna in the prosecution case and submitted that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, and therefore, urged that the said application be dismissed. However, learned trial court passed an order below the said application Exh.54 on 12.7.2012 and thereby allowed the said application and directed that the charge be altered and copy of the said order is annexed at Exh.
'F'. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition and impugned the said order, dated 12.7.2012 therein.
8] Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power given under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to alter the charge needs to be exercised in judicious manner and such power cannot be exercised at the belated stage, more particularly, when the defence of the petitioner was made by filing written arguments by him. He also submitted that the charge was framed in the present case on 15.3.2011, and thereafter, the prosecution adduced its entire evidence and defence has adduced its evidence and even the accused has filed written arguments and thereafter the prosecution has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 6 crwp699.12 preferred the present application Exh.54 for alternation of charge at the belated stage and it is apparent that the said application was filed malafidely. He also canvassed that perhaps learned trial court has lost sight of the fact that granting application Exh.54 at the belated stage caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.
9] Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that application Exh. 54 has been preferred by the learned A.P.P. on 11.6.2012 in a casual manner, wherein it is prayed that the word 'motive' is remained to be mentioned before the word 'reward' in the said charge, and therefore, the said word 'motive' be mentioned before the word 'reward in the said charge by altering the said charge.
10] Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the definition of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 contemplates that, "whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 7 crwp699.12 remuneration, as a motive or reward."
11] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the word 'motive' is added before the word 'reward' in the charge, dated 15.3.2011, the sentence would be, "gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive reward to return the documents and key", which would not convey any meaning, and accordingly, he submitted that even the learned A.P.P. has not prayed for addition of word 'motive or' before the word 'reward', and hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said application itself is faulty and even after alternation of charge as prayed for by the learned A.P.P. in the said application, it will not convey any meaning and the purpose of the prosecution would not be served.
12] Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the communication, dated 18.10.2012 produced by the learned A.P.P. discloses that even after alteration of the charge as granted by the learned trial court, the prosecution does not desire to adduce any further evidence, which leads to the position that the prosecution has preferred the said ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 8 crwp699.12 application only for the compliance of technical requirement and not beyond that. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order, dated 12.7.2012 be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
13] In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner cited following judicial pronouncement of this court in the case of Ravishankar s/o Jagannath Prasad Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 855, which is as follows :-
" The charge of offence punishable under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act or section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for which imprisonment prescribed is less than one year, was sought to be added seventeen years after the incident. This amounts to persecution and not prosecution. Without showing any justification for making such application belatedly at the stage of addressing the final arguments, the Assistant Public Prosecutor invoked the powers of High Court, and unfortunately without considering the necessity to put an end to an 18 year old case, the Magistrate merrily acceded to the request, disregarding the objections of the defence. He should have considered that after the entire trial ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::
9 crwp699.12 was over addition of such charge would have prejudiced to the defence. It is equally unfortunate that the Additional Sessions Judge failed to exercise the powers vested in him and refused to correct the error in Magistrate's acceding to such an improper request. Petition allowed. Orders passed by the Magistrate allowing the application and that passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision application, are set aside."
14] Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs State of Gujarat and others, reported at AIR 2004 SC 2078, which is as follows :-
"10. Therefore, if during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to approximately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."
15] Learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and opposed the present petition vehemently and submitted that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 10 crwp699.12 charge in the Special Case No. 19 of 2011 was framed on 15.3.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, wherein the word 'motive' before the word 'reward' remained to mentioned inadvertently, and therefore, to rectify the said charge, the learned A.P.P. has preferred the application Exh.54 under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there is no ulterior motive of the prosecution in preferring the said application. He also pointed out that it is specifically mentioned in the said application that word 'motive' is remained to be mentioned before the word 'reward' in the said charge due to inadvertence, and therefore, the said word 'motive' is required to be mentioned before the word 'reward' in the said charge, and accordingly, he has preferred the said application for alteration of the charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Exh.54 before the pronouncement of judgment, and therefore, there is no question of causing any prejudice to the petitioner. Even he submitted that the learned trial court has taken care of the said aspect and granted liberty to the petitioner to recall and re-examine the witnesses with reference to such alteration or addition in the charge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::11 crwp699.12 16] Accordingly, learned A.P.P. submitted that interest of the petitioner/accused has been well protected by the learned trial court while allowing the said application Exh.54. It is also observed in the impugned order, dated 12.7.2012 that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the court may alter or add to any charge, at any time, before judgment is pronounced and Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides an opportunity to the prosecution and accused to recall or re-summon and examine with reference to such alteration or addition any witness who may have been examined, and further, as mentioned herein above, the learned trial court has safeguarded the interest of the petitioner, and hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
Accordingly, he urged that present petition be dismissed.
17] I have perused the present petition, its annexures, more particularly charge, dated 15.3.2011 framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 and application Exh. 54, dated. 11.6.2012 preferred by the learned A.P.P. in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 requesting to alter the charge, reply dated 21.6.2012 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 12 crwp699.12 respondent to the said application Exh. 54 and the impugned order, dated 12.7.2012 and heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considered the judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
18] At the out set, it is the matter of record that the charge was framed in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 15.3.2011.
Thereafter, the prosecution adduced the entire evidence and even the prosecution had closed its evidence on 5.4.2012, even thereafter the defence witnesses were also examined and the said case was posted on 11.4.2012 for arguments, and further it was posted on 18.4.2012, 23.4.2012 and 7.5.2012.
Accordingly, the accused submitted his written arguments on 7.5.2012 and the said case was adjourned to 11.5.2012 and learned A.P.P. sought adjournments for arguments and case was adjourned to 17.5.2012. Again learned A.P.P. sought adjournment on 17.5.2012 for arguments and the said matter was posted on 25.5.2012. Further learned A.P.P. sought time for arguments and the said matter was adjourned to 11.5.2012.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::13 crwp699.12 19] Accordingly, on 11.6.2012, learned A.P.P. preferred the very application Exh.54 requesting to grant permission for alternation of charge. Thus, firstly although charge was framed on 15.3.2011, application for alteration of charge was preferred by learned A.P.P. 11.6.2012 i.e. almost after the lapse of 1 year and 3 months and the prosecution has not given any plausible explanation for the said delay. Secondly, a bare perusal of the contents of the application Exh. 54, dated 11.6.2012 discloses that no specific cogent and convincing ground has been mentioned in the said application, except alleged inadvertence for preferring the said application at the belated stage and the alleged ground of inadvertence put forth by the learned A.P.P. is a general ground. It is stated in the said application that the word 'motive' is remained to be mentioned before the word 'reward in the said charge due to inadvertence, and therefore, prosecution be permitted to mention the said word 'motive' before the word 'reward in the charge by altering the said charge, otherwise it would affect on the case.
20] The petitioner herein has filed reply to the said ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 14 crwp699.12 application and pointed out that the petitioner/accused has filed his written arguments and perhaps after reading the said written arguments, the learned A.P.P. has preferred the application below Exh.54 for alteration of charge to fill in the lacuna and as a measure to seek adjournment for argument. The petitioner also asserted that if the said application is allowed at such a stage i.e. after filing written arguments by the petitioner/accused and if the charge is altered, it would affect the defence of the petitioner/accused which would cause prejudice to him and would divest the right which is vested in him after opening his defence by filing written argument, and he opposed the said application vehemently. However, it appears that the learned trial Judge while allowing the said application Exh. 54 by order, dated 12.7.2012, did not deal with the very objection raised by the petitioner/accused that the petitioner/accused has already filed written argument and perhaps after reading the same the learned A.P.P. has preferred the present application Exh. 54 for alteration of charge to fill in the lacuna and the said objection raised by the petitioner remained unanswered in the impugned order.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::15 crwp699.12 21] Besides, it is useful to reproduce the definition of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is as under :-
"7) Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act :- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
22] Hence, the very said definition of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 contemplates, "a public ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 16 crwp699.12 servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, as a motive or reward".
23] The charge, dated 15.3.2011 framed in the present case is as follows :-
" That you accused being a public servant i.e. Police Constable at Songir police station, Taluka and District Dhule on 22.7.2010 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant Biharilal Punamchand Agrawal for yourself gratification other than legal remuneration as a reward to return the documents and key of complainant's Goods Carrier Truck bearing No. MH-18/M-8222 which was loaded of wheat bags, from your custody and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance."
24] Looking to the charge and coming to the very application Exh. 54 preferred by the learned A.P.P., wherein prayer was made that the word 'motive' be added before the word 'reward' in the said charge by altering the same.
Accordingly, learned trial court allowed the said application by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 17 crwp699.12 impugned order, dated 12.7.2012. Even assuming, as per the said impugned order, the word 'motive' is added before the word 'reward in the charge, dated 15.3.2011, as emphasis supplied in the charge quoted herein above, the said charge would read as, "gratification other than legal remuneration as a 'motive reward' to return the documents and key", which will not convey any meaning and the said sentence would be meaningless sentence after adding word 'motive' before the word 'reward'.
25] In fact, the learned A.P.P. should have preferred the application for adding the words 'motive or' before the word 'reward', but he has preferred an application only for addition of word 'motive' only before the word 'reward'. Hence, it is apparently clear that the application Exh. 54 has been preferred by the learned A.P.P. on 11.6.2012 for alteration of charge in casual manner, perhaps as a tool to seek the adjournment for the argument, since he has already sought number of adjournments for argument and even the petitioner/accused has already filed his written argument on record. Hence, the impugned order, passed by the learned trial court on 12.7.2012 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 18 crwp699.12 on the basis of such application, dated 11.6.2012 preferred by the learned A.P.P. in routine and casual manner will not serve any purpose of the prosecution, and therefore, it also appears that the said application was preferred just for the technical compliance to add word 'motive' before the word 'reward' as a device to seek the adjournment for argument.
26] Undisputably, learned A.P.P. preferred the application Exh. 54 under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Hence, it appears that the learned Trial Judge after considering the nature of said Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that charge can be altered or added at any time before the judgment is pronounced, has allowed the application Exh. 54, observing that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the court may alter or add to any charge, at any time, before judgment is pronounced. Even he further observed that Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides an opportunity to the prosecution and accused to recall or re-summon and examine ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 19 crwp699.12 with reference to such alteration or addition any witness who may have been examined, and it is further observed that the prosecution cannot move application for alteration of charge.
27] However, it appears that the learned trial court seems to have overlooked the very generic meaning and the import of the word 'may' used in Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislature has used the word 'may' in the said Section and the word 'may' used by the Legislature does not signify that a court can alter or add to any charge liberally without any propriety and justification for the same, at any stage of the trial. The very application Exh. 54 preferred by the learned A.P.P. for alteration of charge, dated 11.6.2012 does not spell out propriety to alter or add in the charge. No doubt, in view of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no bar of the stage and charge may be altered at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment by any court, but the necessity/propriety and justification to alter or add to any charge is required to be crystalised, but so did not happen in the present case.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::20 crwp699.12 28] Thus, it is apparent that the very application Exh. 54, dated 11.6.2012 preferred by the learned A.P.P. requesting for permission to alter the charge has been preferred in routine and casual manner, without any convincing justification and without spelling out any necessity/propriety for proposed alteration of the said charge, and material objections raised by the petitioner/accused in his reply Exh. 54 were not considered while passing the impugned order and further learned Trial Judge has not adverted to very generic meaning and import of word 'may' in the definition of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that any court may alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, and passed the impugned order thereby divesting the rights of the petitioner/accused which are vested in him by filing written arguments and opening his defence, by grant of such application, and therefore, same deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
29] In the said context, my view is fortified by the judgment of this court in the case of Ravishankar s/o Jagannath Prasad Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra, reported ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 21 crwp699.12 at 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 855 (supra). Reliance also can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ravishankar s/o Jagannath Prasad Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 855 (cited supra).
30] Besides, it also cannot be overlooked that the learned A.P.P. filed communication, dated 18.10.2012 annexing the letter, dated 11.10.2012 thereto, which reflects that even after grant of application Exh. 54 by impugned order, dated 12.7.2012 the prosecution does not desire to examine any more witnesses, and the said communication is self-explanatory and speaks for itself and clarifies the position that the learned A.P.P. preferred the application Exh. 54 requesting to alter the charge just for the technical compliance and perhaps for the sake of seeking adjournment on the said date and not beyond that, and therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
31] In the result, present petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C' thereof and the impugned order, dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 ::: 22 crwp699.12 12.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule below Exh. 54 in Special Case No. 19 of 2011 stands quashed and set aside.
32] Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms.
ig (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),
JUDGE.
dbm/crwp699.12
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:21:28 :::