MANJU LATA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), are interlinked as arisen from the orders-dated 07.11.2007 and 22.11.2007 (for short the first and second order') passed by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], Rewa in Special Case No.97/98.

(2.) In that case, cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act was taken on 04.11.2004 upon the charge-sheet submitted by Dy. Superintendent of Police (SPE), Lokayukt arraigning 9 persons including the petitioners as accused. However, for the reasons recorded in the order-dated 17.08.2005, the then trial Judge charged only three accused namely R.P. Tiwari, Dr. Pradeep Mishra andD.P. Singh with the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC and also under Section 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act whereas charges of the offences under the IPC only were framed against the remaining six accused including the petitioners. All the accused abjured the guilt and they were., accordingly, tried on the respective charges. However, on 30.10.2007, while hearing the final arguments, learned trial Judge, expressing an opinion that prima facie the offence under the Act was also made out against all the six accused charged with the offences punishable under IPC only, proceeded to afford them an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, vide the first order in question, he added the offence under Section 13(l)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Act to the earlier charges framed against the petitioners and the identically placed co-accused namely Gokaran Kushwaha, Kaushlesh Dwivedi and Kaushal Saket. Subsequently, by the second order under challenge, the applications, under Section 217 of the Code, moved on behalf of the petitioners, for recalling all the prosecution witnesses and those filed by co-accused Gokaran Kushwaha and Kaushal Saket, for re-summoning some of them was rejected.

(3.) The first order has been sought to be quashed inter alia on the ground that the learned Judge had grossly erred in reviewing the earlier order, passed on 17.08.05, impliedly discharging the petitioners and three other accused in respect of the offence under the Act. However, the contention deserves to be rejected as apparently misconceived simply because, under Section 216 of the Code, an existing charge can be altered or added to at any time before the judgment (Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC 347). Moreover, charge can be altered even at appellate stage (Kantilal Chandulal Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 359). But, the alteration or addition of any charge, in the words of Lord Porter, is always subject to limitation that no course should be taken by reason of which the accused may be prejudiced either because-he is not fully aware of the charge made or is not given full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him on the charge finally preferred (Thakur Shah vs. Emperor AIR 1943 PC 192). In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the first order.