P.Rajkumar v. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNANCrl.RC(MD). No.22 of 2025andCrl.M.P.(MD).No.145 of 2025P.Rajkumar ... Petitioner Vs.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dindigul Detachment, Dindigul District. Crime No.7 of 2010... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge Cum learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in Docket Order dated 16.12.2024 in Spl.C.No.24 of 2014 and set aside the same. For Petitioner: Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Mr.S.BalajiFor Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge Cum learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, filed this revision to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge Cum learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in Docket Order dated 16.12.2024 in Spl.C.No.24 of 2014.

The prosecution case is that he had received the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- and the respondent police completed the investigation and filed the final report before the concerned Special Court and the same was taken on file Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2014 and the learned trial Judge framed the following charge: Kjyhtjhf:ePh; fle;j 10.10.2008k; Njjp Kjy; 06.08.2010k; Njjp tiuahd fhy fl; lj; jpy; ePH; Coy; jLg;Gr; rl; lk; gphpT 2(c)-d; gb nghJ Copauhf jpz; Lf;fy; khtl; lk;> epyf; Nfhl; il rhh; gjpthsh; mYtyfj; jpy; cjptahsuhf gzpapy; ,Ue;j NghJ> Gfhh; jhuh; jpU.rp.uhk%h;j;jp mth; fs; thq; fpa 20 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025kw; Wk; 26 nrd;L epyq; fspd; gj; jpuq; fis gjpa nfhLj;Js;shh;. ,e;j tof; fpd; Gfhh; jhuh; gpg; uthp 2010y; (16.02.2010 kw; Wk; 22.02.2010) vjphpapd; mYtyfj; jpy; jdJ ,uz;L fpiua gj; jpuq; fis gjpT nra;j gpwF 10 ehl; fs; fopj;J ePtPh; epyj; jpid ghh; itapl;L> fpiuag; gj; jpuq; fis 2 ehl; fs; fopj;J thq; fpf; nfhs; Sk;gb $wpajd; Nghpy;> Gfhh; jhuh; 2 ehl; fs; fopj;J ckJ mYtyfj; jpy; re; jpj; jNghJ> M[h; vjphpahfpa ePtPh;> Gfhh; jhuhplk; eP thq; fp ,Uf;Fk; epyk; gpd; dhspy; tPl;lb kidfshff tpiy NghFk;> mjdhy; tPl;lb kid ,lkhf fhl; lhky; nts; splkhfNt gjpT njhif Fiwj;J gjpT nra; ag; gl; Ls;sJ. ,J rk; ge; jkhf nfhLf;Fk; hpg; Nghl; il nghWj;j tiuapy; cd; Dila gj; jpuq; fs; tpiutpy; fpilf; Fk;> gj; jpuq; fs; rPf;fpuk; fpilf;f Vw;ghL nra; tjw;F vdf;F &.15>000/- ju Ntz; Lk; vd;W Nfl; Ls;sPh;. NkYk; 28.07.2010k; Njjp kPz;Lk; Gfhh; jhuh; fhiy 11.00 kzpastpy; ck; ik ckJ mYtyfj; jpy; re; jpj; jNghJ> ePtPh;> ehd; Nfl;l gzk; &.15>000/- nfhz;L te; jpUf;fpwhah vd;W Nfl; Ls;sPh;. kPz;Lk; 05.08.2010k; Njjp fhiy 11.00 kzpf;F ck; ik ckJ mYtyfj; jpy; re; jpj; jNghJ> ePtPh; Gfhh; jhuhplk; 06.08.2010k; Njjp kjpak; te;J &.15>000/- nfhLj;Jtpl;L mry; gj; jpuq; fis thq; fpf; nfhs; Sk;gb $wpAs;sPh;. Nkw; gb ePh; rl; lg; gbahd Cjpaj; jpw;F Nky; Mjhak; ngWk; 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025 Nehf; fj; jpy; ifa+l;L Nfl; ljhf ck; kPJ Coy; jLg;Gr;rl; lk; 1988 gphpT 7-d; fPo; jz; bf; fj; jf; fJk; ,e;ePjpkd; wj; jpdhy; tprhhpf; fj; jf;f Fw;wk; Ghpe; Js;sPh;. ,uz; lhtjhf: Nkw; gb Fw;wj; jpd; njhlh;r;rpahf 06.08.2010k; Njjp Nkw; gb Gfhh; jhuhpd; gjpT nra;j ,uz;L fpiuag; gj; jpuq; fis jpUk;g nfhLg;gjw; fhf &.15>000/-j;ij Gfhh; jhuh; jpU.rp.,uhk%h;j;jp mth; fsplkpUe;J ifa+l;lhf Nfl;L ngw; Ws;sPh;fs;. mjd; gbf;F nghJ Copauhd ePtPh; rl; lg; gbahd tUkhdj; jpw;F mjpfkhf Cjpak; ngWk; Nehf; fpy; ele;J Fw;wKW nra; if Ghpe; Js;sjhy;> ck; kPJ Coy; jLg;Gr;rl; lk; 1988 gphpT 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)d; fPo; jz; bf; fj; jf; fJk;> ,e;j ePjpkd; wj; jhy; tprhhpf; fj; jf; fJkhd Fw;wk; Ghpe; Js;sjhf Fw;wr; rhl;L tide;J cj; jutpLfpNwd;. Nkw; nrhd;d Fw;wr; rhl; bd; Nguhy; ePtPh; ,e;ePjpkd; wj; jpdhy; tprhuiz nra; ag; gl Ntz; Lnkd;W ,jd;%yk; cj; jutplg; gLfpwJ. vjphpf;F Fw;wr; rhl; bd; jd; ikia jkpopy; tpsf; fp $wg; gl; lJ. 2024k; tUk; brk; gh; khjk; 16k; Njjpapl; lJ.

After completion of the trial and the completion of the argument, 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025the prosecution came up with a petition to alter the charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., and the same was objected by the petitioner. The learned trial judge without considering the objection, allowed the application filed by the prosecution to alter the charges in Docket Order dated 16.12.2024 in Spl.C.No.24 of 2014. Hence, the present petition has been filed to set aside the said order. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge is totally inconsistent with the charge framed originally and the said alteration caused prejudice to him. Apart from that, the learned trial Judge has not provided adequate opportunity to the petitioner for further cross examination as per law. Therefore, he seeks for setting aside the Docket order on the basis of the above said infirmity.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that as per the provision of Criminal Procedure Code, there is a power to alter the charge and the same was correctly entertained by the learned trial Judge. So far as the cross examination of the witnesses is concerned, the petitioner has not opted 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025the said option and hence, the learned trial Judge posted the case for further proceedings. In the said circumstances, he seeks for dismissal of this revision.

This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police and also perused the materials available on record.

This Court finds that the learned trial Judge correctly exercised his power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., and allowed the petition to alter charge and this Court finds no legal infirmity in allowing the petition filed by the prosecution to alter the charge and the same is in accordance with law. However, the order of the learned trial Judge in not allowing the accused to cross-examine the witness on the newly framed charges is not correct. As per Section 216 of Cr.P.C., once the charge is altered, it is the duty of the learned trial judge to conduct the trial as per the procedure stated in Section 217 of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge has not complied 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.22 of 2025the said procedure as per Section 217 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there was a denial of fair opportunity to the accused.