SELVI J JAYALALITHA Vs. ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Criminal Original Petitions have arisen in this way:- On the complaint of one Smt. O.P. Susamma, Secretary to the Government, Small Industries Department, a Case was registered by the respondent in Crime No.17 of 1996 on 09-07-1996 and after investigation, a final report was filed against the petitioner herein and others for offences under Section 169 I.P.C., Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 1091.P.C., Section 409 read with Section 1091.P.C., Section 120-B I.P.C., and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of the final report, the XIII Additional/ Special Judge II, Chennai, took the matter on the file in C.C.Nos. 4 of 1997 and 13 of 1997. The petitioner preferred batch of revisions to quash the aforesaid charges framed by the learned Special Judge against the petitioner. This Court discharged the petitioner of the charges framed against her. As against the order of discharge, the respondent preferred S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 475, 476 and 477 of 2000 before the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, the Counsel appearing for the State conceded that offence under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be charged against the respondent therein/petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner herein preferred Crl. M.P. Nos. 651 of 2000 and 656 of 2000 under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Special Judge to alter the charges. The learned Special Judge held that the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. would not apply, in that altering the charge amounts to erasing the substantive charge under Section 420 I.P.C. and also erasing the ancillary charge under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 109 I.P.C. The learned Special Judge held that alteration would not include deletion or abolition of the charge and accordingly dismissed the petitions.

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders of the Special Court, the petitioner has come forward with the instant petitions to set aside the orders passed by the learned Special Judge.

(3.) Heard both the sides. The points that arise in the instant petitions are: (i) whether the alteration of a charge includes deletion also ? and (ii) in view of the concession given by the learned Counsel for the State before the Supreme Court whether the charges are to be deleted at this stage ?