The Karnataka High Court in the case Shivappa AND State of Karnataka and ANR observed that the courts should be very conscious and unless it is satisfied that the material evidence placed before it warrants exercise of power under Section 216 (Court may alter charge) and the powers under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr.P.C. should not be exercised.
The bench headed by single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty in the case observed and has stated that the abuse of legal procedure is one of the major factors for delay in disposal of cases. Unless the said court dispense with such procedures which are totally unnecessary and causes no prejudice to the parties if they are dispensed with, it would not be possible for the Courts to take effective steps for speedy disposal of the cases.
Adding to it, the court stated that providing the Fast Track Court and use of Alternate Dispute Resolution, is not sufficient to reduce the burden of the Courts. Thus, 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.
The court in the case observed and had allowed the petition filed by accused Shivappa who was charged under Sections 304A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Section 135(1)A Karnataka Electricity Act.
An application was filed by the prosecution at the fag end of the trial wherein seeking amendment of charges, the trial court altered the charges for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II instead of offence punishable under Section 304A.
The petitioner in the plea argued that unless sufficient material is available on record during the course of trial, the power under Section 216 cannot be exercised.
On the other hand, the opposition opposed the plea wherein it is stated that at any stage the trial Court can alter or add any charge if it finds that there is sufficient material for exercising powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the accused are not prejudiced since they have a right to recall the witnesses.
The bench while referring to the Section 216 and 217 of the Code stated that it is only the trial Court which can suo moto exercise power under this provision of law and power under this provision of law cannot be exercised at the instance of the accused or the complainant. Thus, 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.
The court in the case also referred to the supreme court judgement in the case P.Kartikalakshmi Vs.Sri.Ganesh and Another, wherein the court held that that the application is filed by the prosecution to alter the charges. Thus, In view of the judgment of the Hon’b le Supreme Court in the case of P.KARTIKALAKSHMI the said application was not maintainable and therefore, the trial Court could not have entertained the same and passed the impugned order.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order.
The counsel. Advocate Srinand A Pachhapure appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate, HCGP Girija S Hiremath represented the Respondents.