The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not empower courts to delete charges already framed, holding that the provision can only be used to add or alter charges. The ruling came in the judgment delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Others.
Background
The appeals arose from orders passed by the Delhi High Court which had affirmed trial court decisions remanding two criminal cases—both involving the psychotropic substance Buprenorphine—to be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) instead of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). In both cases, charges had already been framed under Sections 8, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act by the Special Judge.
Subsequently, the accused filed applications under Section 216 CrPC seeking deletion of these charges, arguing that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride was not listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, and therefore, no offence under the NDPS Act was made out.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Section 216 CrPC
Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court held that:
“Section 216 CrPC provides the Court with the power to do two things – One, alter a charge and two, add to a charge. Nowhere, does the provision expressly or by necessary implication lead to an inference that a charge could be deleted altogether.”
The Court clarified that deletion or discharge after framing of charges falls outside the scope of Section 216 and must follow other procedural remedies:
“Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking discharge after the charge has been framed by the Court.”
Further criticizing the procedural misuse, the Court noted:
“It has become routine practice for the accused to file an application under Section 216 CrPC after their application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC is dismissed, sometimes in ignorance of the law but also on other occasions with the sole intent of derailing the trial.”
Emphasizing legislative intent, the Court stated:
“The language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated.”
Final Decision
Setting aside the orders of the Delhi High Court and the Special Judge, the Supreme Court held that the charges under the NDPS Act had been validly framed and could not have been deleted by invoking Section 216 CrPC.
The Court also ruled that possession and handling of Buprenorphine, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act—even if not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules—still attracts the prohibitions under Section 8(c) of the Act. Thus, the accused are liable to be tried under the NDPS Act.
