C.B.I. versus KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 04-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 3 S.C.R 588 
C.B.I. 
v. 
KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2009) 
MARCH 4, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
s.216 - Alteration of charge - One of the absconding 
accused in Bombay bomb blast case (12.3.1993) 
apprehended subsequently - Charges framed - Original 
charge of criminal conspiracy uls 3(2) TADA r!w s. 120 /PC 
and other offences, though applicable, but inadvertently not 
0 
mentioned - Application by CBI for addition of the charges -
Rejected by Designated Court - Held: This is a fit case where 
the court ought to have exercised its powers u/s 216 CrPC 
and allowed the application filed by CBI for alteration of 
charge. Consequently, impugned order is set aside --
Application preferred by CBI uls 216 would stand allowed and 
E Designated Court is directed to further proceed with the case 
in accordance with law. 
The instant appeal was filed by the CBI against the 
order of the Designated Court established under the 
F Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,1987 
rejecting the application filed by the CBI u/s 216 of the 
Court of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for addition of the 
charges punishable u/s 302, IPC and other charges 
under the Penal Code and Explosives Act read with 
G s.120-B IPC and also u/s 3(2) of TADA. The respondent 
was accused no. 193 in the Bombay bomb blasts case 
relating to the incident that took place on 12-03-1993 
resulting into death of 257 persons, injuries to 713 
persons and damage to properties worth approximately 
H 
588 
C.8.1. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN 
589 
Rs. 27 Crores. Since the respondent was absconding and 
A 
was arrested on 22-08-2008, he was remanded to the 
police custody and further investigation was carried on. 
On 01-01-2009 the Designated Court framed charge of 
conspiracy against the respondent u/s 120-D IPC read 
with s. 3(3) of TADA. It was the stand of the CBI that 
B 
inadvertently the original charge of criminal conspiracy 
u/s 3(2) of TADA read with s.120-B IPC and other offences 
applicable, was not mentioned. Therefore, the CBI filed 
an application on 26-02-2009 u/s 216 Cr.P.C for alteration 
of charge by addition of the charges for the offences c 
punishable u/s 302 IPC and other offences under the IPC 
and the Explosives Act read with s.120-B IPC ands. 3(2) 
of the TADA. The Designated Court rejected the 
application. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Designated Court failed to appreciate 
that the supplementary charge-sheet dated 17.11.2008 
. filed against the respondent accused was in continuation 
D 
of the original charge-sheet filed on 4.11.1993 and the list E 
of witnesses annexed to the supplementary charge-sheet 
was shown as list of additional witnesses. Further, the 
entire material available at that time, which led to the 
framing of charges during abscondance of the 
respondent accused and other accused persons, is 
F 
available to the prosecution to be used against the 
respondent at the stage of cha.rge or at the stage of 
modification of the charge. [para 10] [598-G-H; 599-A] 
1.2 Besides, it is a case where the respondent 
accused was absconding for about 15 years and, 
G 
therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the 
prosecution alone. [para 11] [599-B] 
1.3 Section 216, CrPC gives considerable powers to 
the trial court, that is, even after the completion of H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A evidence, arguments heard and the judgment reserved, 
it can alter and add any charge, subject to the conditions 
mentioned therein. The expressions "at any time" and 
before the "judgment is pronounced" would indicate that 
the power is very wide and can be exercised, in 
B appropriate cases, in the interest of justice, but at the 
same time, the court should also see that its orders 
would not cause any prejudice to the accused. Alteration 
or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out 
by the evidence recorded during the course of trial 
c before the Court. [para 15] [601-D-F] 
D 
Jasvinder Saini and others v. State (Government of NCT 
of Delhi) 2013 (7) SCR 340 = (2013) 7 SCC 256; Thakur 
Shah v. Emperor AIR 1943 PC 192; Harihar Chakravarty v. 
State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 266 • referred to. 
1.4 So far as the instant case is concerned, with 
regard to the incident occurred on 12.3.1993 (Bombay 
blasts), trial in respect of 123 accused persons had been 
concluded, out of which 100 persons were con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.