DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

1116                       [2020]
                SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 1116
                               REPORTS                     [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A                DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY
                                        v.
                 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019)
 B                             JANUARY 21, 2020
               [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                       HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
             s. 216 – Framing of Additional charges – Scope of the power
 C
       – Held: s. 216 provides to the Court exclusive and wide ranging
       power to change or alter any charge – Court can exercise the power
       to add charges at any stage before the judgment is pronounced –
       The test to be adopted by the Court is that the material brought on
       record needs to have direct nexus with the ingredients of the alleged
 D     offence – The Court must exercise such power judiciously and ensure
       that no prejudice is caused to the accused – In the facts of the
       present case, High Court rightly framed additional charges.
             Penal Code, 1860:
             ss. 406 and 420 – Prosecution u/s. 498A of IPC and ss. 3 and
 E     4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Application for framing additional
       charges u/s. 406 and 420 IPC – Denied by trial court – High Court
       directed framing of additional charges – Appeal to Supreme Court
       – Held: There exists sufficient material on record that shows a
       connection or link with the ingredients of offences u/ss. 406 and
 F     420 – High Court has spelled out the reasons that have necessitated
       the addition of the charge, hence need no interference.
             Dismissing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1. Section 216 of Cr.P.C. provides the court an
       exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge.
 G     The use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced”
       in Sub-Section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of
       altering or adding charges even after the completion of evidence,
       arguments and reserving of the judgment. The alteration or
       addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court
 H
                                       1116
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1117
                  PRADESH & ORS

there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima        A
facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the
court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The test to
be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or
alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs
                                                                       B
to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged
offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the
additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be
determined whether the accused may be convicted for the
additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under
Section 216 judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to      C
the accused and that he is allowed to have a fair trial. The only
constraint on the court’s power is the prejudice likely to be caused
to the accused by the addition or alteration of charges. Sub-Section
(4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by the
courts where prejudice may be caused. Section 217 of CrPC deals
                                                                       D
with recalling of witnesses when the charge is altered or added
by the court after commencement of the trial. [Paras 15 and
20][1125-F; 1128-G; 1129-A-C]
      2.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent
before this Court, depositions of PW 1 (LW 1), PW 5 (LW 12) and
PW 6 (LW 13) and their cross-examination have been annexed.            E
The material on record supports the possibility that in April 2006,
the appellant demanded Rs 5,00,000/- from PW 1, who is the
complainant, in order to secure a doctor’s job for the complainant’s
daughter in the United Kingdom. According to PW 1, he borrowed
the amount from PW 5 (brother-in-law of PW 1) and paid it to the       F
appellant in the presence of PW 5 and PW 6 (friend of PW 1).
Without pronouncing on the probative value of such evidence,
there exists sufficient material on record that shows a connection
or link with the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of the IPC, and the charges sought to be added.
Therefore, the test adopted by the High Court is correct.              G
[Para 23][1131-A-C]
      2.2. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses
is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of
framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be
                                                                       H
1118            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A     done by the court only after the charges have been framed and
       the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of
       charge, the court needs to prima facie determine that there exists
       sufficient material for the commencement of trial. The High Court
       has relied upon the materials on record and concluded that the
       ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the
 B
       IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the reasons that
       have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the
       impugned order does not warrant any interference. [Para 24]
       [1131-D-E]
             P Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh (2017) 3 SCC 347;
 C           Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC
             105; CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan (2014) 11 SCC 538
             : [2014] 3 SCR 588; Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt of
             NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256 : [2013] 7 SCR 340 –
             relied on.
 D           Onkar Nath Mishra v. The State (2008) 2 SCC 561 :
             [2007] 13 SCR 716; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v.
             State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 : [2000] 2 SCR 859;
             Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation (2010)
             9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11 SCR 669 – referred to.
 E                            Case Law Reference
       [2007] 13 SCR 716           referred to           Para 9 (f)
       [2000] 2 SCR 859            referred to           Para 9 (f)
       (2016) 6 SCC 105            relied on             Para 10 (b)
 F
       [2010] 11 SCR 669           referred to           Para 10 (b)
       (2017) 3 SCC 347            relied on             Para 16
       [2014] 3 SCR 588            relied on             Para 18
       [2013] 7 SCR 340            relied on             Para 19
 G
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1934 of 2019.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2019 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Revision Case No. 2712 of
       2017.
 H
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1119
                  PRADESH & ORS

      Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar,                    A
Ms. Sanjana Thomas, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Vikas Gupta, Advs. for
the Appellant.
      A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, Sr. Adv., M.A.Chinnasamy,
Ms. C. Rubavathi, V. Senthil Kumar, P. Raja Ram, T. Meikandan,
K. Ethiraj, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Gowtham Polanki, Ms. Anindita Mitra,        B
Advs. for the Respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
       1. This appeal arises from the judgment of a Single Judge of the      C
High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 6 March 2019. A revision petition1
filed by the fourth respondent against an order of the Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Sattenapalli was allowed and directions were issued for the
framing of charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code 18602.
                                                                             D
       2. On 10 March 2011, a First Information Report3 was lodged by
the fourth respondent, who is the father-in-law of the appellant, alleging
that the appellant and the members of his family had harassed his daughter
with demands for money and transfer of land in their names. The FIR
recites that the appellant and the daughter of the fourth respondent got
married in 2003. Allegedly, in 2006 the appellant and his family refused     E
to take the complainant’s daughter to the United Kingdom where her
husband was staying unless her Stridhana property was transferred in
their names.
       3. On 30 June 2012, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant
and his parents for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along with        F
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 19614. The investigating
officer, upon receipt of additional information about the commission of
other offences by the appellant, obtained permission from the Trial Court
for further investigation. Based on the statements of various witnesses
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19735 with respect
                                                                             G
to the appellant raising a demand of Rs 5,00,000/- for securing a job for
1
  Criminal Revision Case no 2712 of 2017
2
  “IPC”
3
  “FIR”
4
  “Dowry Prohibition Act”
5
  “CrPC”                                                                     H
1120                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A     the complainant’s daughter as a doctor in the United Kingdom, an
       additional charge-sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 in respect of the
       alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
       The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant only for offences
       mentioned in the original charge-sheet dated 30 June 2012 under Section
       498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
 B
       Act. The trial commenced and after the recording of evidence and
       conclusion of arguments, the case was reserved for judgment on 13
       February 2017.
              4. On 13 February 2017, an application was filed by the Public
       Prosecutor under Section 216 of CrPC for alteration of charge stating
 C     that even though an additional charge-sheet had been filed by the
       investigating officer on 12 April 2013 implicating the appellant for crimes
       under Sections 406 and 420, charges were not framed by the trial judge
       under those provisions. On 21 February 2017, the Trial Court allowed
       the application and charges under Sections 406 and 420 were framed
 D     against the appellant. The Trial Court observed that the court only had
       the opportunity of going through the original charge-sheet dated 30 June
       2012 and not the additional charge-sheet dated 12 April 2013 that was
       kept in a separate bundle. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the
       appellant instituted revisional proceedings before the High Court.
 E            5. On 1 June 2017, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
       revision petition6 and set aside the order of the Trial Court framing
       additional charges on the ground of procedural irregularity but left it
       open to the Trial Court to frame, if at all necessary, any additional charges
       after providing both the sides with an opportunity of hearing and recalling
       witnesses.
 F
              6. The Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the
       sides and perusing the material available on record concluded that the
       ingredients for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made
       out and by an order dated 11 October 2017 rejected the application for
       framing additional charges. The fourth respondent filed a revision petition
 G     before the High Court against the above order of the Trial Court.
             7. On 6 March 2019, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed
       the revision petition7 and set aside the Trial Court’s order. The High
       Court held that the Trial Court while rejecting the application under Section
       6
           Criminal Revision Case no 661 of 2017
 H     7
           Criminal Revision Case no 2712 of 2017
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1121
  PRADESH & ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

216 did not disclose the reasons for concluding that the ingredients of     A
Sections 406 and 420 were not attracted and only touched upon the
lapses of the prosecution in not seeking an alteration of charges during
the course of the trial. The High Court while directing the framing of
additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC evaluated the
witness statements brought on record during the course of investigation
                                                                            B
and referred to the additional charge-sheet filed on 12 April 2013.
      8. Aggrieved by the order dated 6 March 2019 of the High Court,
the appellant moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
       9. Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has urged the following submissions:                       C
      (a) An application for alteration of charge under Section 216
          was intentionally filed on the date of the pronouncement of
          judgment to unnecessarily delay the proceedings;
      (b) The FIR dated 10 March 2011, filed by the fourth respondent,
          has no mention of any demand or payment of Rs 5,00,000/-          D
          to the appellant for securing a job for the complainant’s
          daughter. The FIR only refers to facts with respect to alleged
          offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of
          the Dowry Prohibition Act;
      (c) Both the fourth respondent and his daughter being doctors         E
          are aware that a doctor’s job cannot be secured in the United
          Kingdom without clearing an entrance test. Accordingly, the
          question of paying Rs 5,00,000/- to the appellant for securing
          a job does not arise;
      (d) PW 6, who is a friend of the fourth respondent is an interested   F
          witness as they have been friends for the past twenty-five
          years;
      (e) PW 5, who is the brother-in-law of the fourth respondent, is
          an interested witness and during the cross-examination he
          was unable to mention the date, month and year on which           G
          the alleged amount was paid to the fourth respondent for
          payment to the appellant. There exists no documentary
          material to indicate that the fourth respondent borrowed
          money from PW 5; and
                                                                            H
1122                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A            (f)    The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 have not been
                     fulfilled. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not
                     expected to go deep into the probative value of the material
                     on record. The court only needs to consider whether there is
                     ground for presuming that the offence has been committed
                     (Onkar Nath Mishra v The State8). There exists a fine
 B
                     distinction between cheating and a mere breach of contract.
                     It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of
                     inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct.
                     To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show
                     existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of
 C                   making the promise. (Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v
                     State of Bihar9).
             10. On the other hand, Mr A T M Ranga Ramanujam, learned
       Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted
       thus:
 D            (a) The fourth respondent did not intend to delay the
                  pronouncement of the decision. The additional charge sheet
                  and the cognizance order had been in place before the Trial
                  Court since 2013. The additional charge-sheet missed the
                  attention of the Magistrate because it was kept in a separate
 E                docket;
              (b) The charge can be altered by the court at any time before
                  the pronouncement of the judgment based on the materials
                  available or subsequently brought on record during the course
                  of the trial (Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana10).
 F                In the present case, the investigating officer filed the
                  additional charge-sheet only after he received additional
                  information during the course of investigation in relation to
                  offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Though,
                  the appellant was initially charged in pursuance of the original
                  charge-sheet dated 30 June 2012, subsequent evidence
 G                brought on record does not restrict the court from altering
                  the charge; and

       8
         (2008) 2 SCC 561
       9
         (2000) 4 SCC 168
       10
 H        (2016) 6 SCC 105
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1123
  PRADESH & ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         (c) At the time of framing of charge, it is sufficient if the court is   A
             able to form a presumption regarding the existence of
             ingredients constituting the offence found upon the material
             placed before it. It is not necessary for the court to undertake
             an analysis of the credibility, veracity or evidentiary value of
             the materials placed before it (Sajjan Kumar v Central
                                                                                  B
             Bureau of Investigation11).
         11. The rival submissions fall for our consideration.
       12. In the present case, the investigating officer upon receipt of
additional information about the alleged commission of offences under
Sections 406 and 420 by the appellant, obtained permission for further            C
investigation. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
CrPC indicated that the appellant had raised a demand of Rs 5,00,000/-
for securing a doctor’s job for the complainant’s daughter in the United
Kingdom. After investigation, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 12
April 2013 against the appellant for offences under Sections 406 and
420 of the IPC. This is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the           D
fourth respondent before this Court which contains the docket order of
the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. In an order dated 16 August
2013 it was stated:
         “... Additional charge sheet filed by investigating officer
         through learned APP. This case was taken on file u/s 498 -A of           E
         IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act against A.1 to A.3 on 28.09.2012.
         Perused the Addl. Charge Sheet and other available
         material on record. Heard learned APP. It is a fit case to
         take on file Section 406 and 420 of IPC also against A.1.
         Call on 16.09.2013.”                                                     F
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)
The order dated 13 February 2017 stated thus:
         “... In the case on hand, initially charge sheet was filed for the
         offence u/s 498-A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
                                                                                  G
         and the cognizance was taken for those offences by my
         predecessor. Later an additional charge sheet was filed by
         the investigation officer in this case and my predecessor
         was please to take cognizance of offences punishable u/s

11
     (2010) 9 SCC 368                                                             H
1124            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A           406, 420 IPC also on 16.08.2013. But the fact of filing of
             additional charge sheet was not brought to the notice of
             this Court and the additional charge sheet was kept as a
             separate bundle in the record. So, charges were framed
             against the accused only for the offence punishable u/s 498-
             A IPC and Sec. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sect.
 B
             406 and 420 of IPC were ignored. This fact came out to the
             notice of this Court while this Court has gone through the entire
             record after hearing arguments for disposal of the case. On
             13.02.2017 the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has also filed a
             petition u/s 216 of CrPC, with a prayer to add Section 406, 420 of
 C           IPC and to frame charges for those offences also...”
                                                             (Emphasis supplied)
              13. It is evident from the record that the earlier Additional Junior
       Civil Judge perused the additional charge-sheet and took cognizance of
       offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, at the time
 D     of framing charges, the additional charge-sheet was not brought to the
       notice of the court and the framing of charges against the appellant
       under Sections 406 and 420 was not considered. Therefore, the appellant
       was charged only for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along
       with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was when an
 E     application under Section 216 of CrPC was filed by the public prosecutor
       on 13 February 2017 that it was brought to the notice of the Trial Judge
       that charges under Sections 406 and 420 were not framed.
             14. In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is necessary to refer
       to Section 216 of CrPC:
 F           “216. Court may alter charge.—(1) Any court may alter or add
             to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
             (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained
             to the accused.
             (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding
 G
             immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court,
             to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the
             conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such
             alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if
             the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
 H
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1125
  PRADESH & ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately     A
         with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the
         accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct
         a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
         (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for
         the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case         B
         shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless
         sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same
         facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.”
        15. Section 216 appears in Chapter XVII of the CrPC. Under the
provisions of Section 216, the court is authorised to alter or add to the          C
charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever such
an alteration or addition is made, it is to be read out and explained to the
accused. The phrase “add to any charge” in Sub-Section (1) includes
addition of a new charge. The provision enables the alteration or addition
of a charge based on materials brought on record during the course of
trial. Section 216 provides that the addition or alteration has to be done         D
“at any time before judgment is pronounced”. Sub-Section (3) provides
that if the alteration or addition to a charge does not cause prejudice to
the accused in his defence, or the persecutor in the conduct of the case,
the court may proceed with the trial as if the additional or alternative
charge is the original charge. Sub-Section (4) contemplates a situation            E
where the addition or alteration of charge will prejudice the accused and
empowers the court to either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for
such period as may be necessary to mitigate the prejudice likely to be
caused to the accused. Section 217 of the CrPC deals with recalling of
witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the court after
commencement of the trial.                                                         F

      16. The decision of a two-judge Bench of this Court in
P Kartikalakshmi v Sri Ganesh12, dealt with a case where during the
course of a trial for an offence under Section 376 of the IPC, an
application under Section 216 was filed to frame an additional charge
for an offence under Section 417 of the IPC. Justice F M Ibrahim                   G
Kalifulla, while dealing with the power of the court to alter or add any
charge, held:


12
     (2017) 3 SCC 347                                                              H
1126                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A              “6. ... Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any
                charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now
                well settled that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the
                Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition
                or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. It may
                be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge
 B
                and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the
                offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided
                under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge
                and that such power is available with the Court at any time
                before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling
 C              provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain
                contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its
                notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of
                the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be
                altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need to
                be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when
 D
                the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to
                work out their remedies in accordance with law.”
                                                              (Emphasis supplied)
              17. In Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana13, a two judge
 E     Bench of this Court dealt with a situation where for commission of
       offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC, an application was
       filed for framing an additional charge under Section 406 of the IPC
       against the husband and the mother-in law. After referring to various
       decisions of this Court that dealt with the power of the court to alter a
       charge, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was),
 F     held:
                “18. ... the court can change or alter the charge if there is defect
                or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the
                material available on record. It can be on the basis of the
                complaint or the FIR or accompanying documents or the
 G              material brought on record during the course of trial. It
                can also be done at any time before pronouncement of
                judgment. It is not necessary to advert to each and every
                circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a
                charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction
       13
 H          (2016) 6 SCC 105
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1127
  PRADESH & ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the            A
         charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind is that the
         charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with the
         materials produced before him or if subsequent evidence
         comes on record. It is not to be understood that unless evidence
         has been let in, charges already framed cannot be altered, for that
                                                                                  B
         is not the purport of Section 216 CrPC.
         19. In addition to what we have stated hereinabove, another aspect
         also has to be kept in mind. It is obligatory on the part of the court
         to see that no prejudice is caused to the accused and he is allowed
         to have a fair trial. There are in-built safeguards in Section 216
         CrPC. It is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind that no          C
         prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the potentiality to
         affect a fair trial...”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)
      18. In CBI v Karimullah Osan Khan14, this Court dealt with a                D
case where an application was filed under Section 216 of CrPC during
the course of trial for addition of charges against the appellant under
various provisions of the IPC, the Explosives Act 1884 and the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987. Justice K S P
Radhakrishnan, speaking for the Court, held thus:
                                                                                  E
         “17. Section 216 CrPC gives considerable power to the trial
         court, that is, even after the completion of evidence,
         arguments heard and the judgment reserved, it can alter
         and add to any charge, subject to the conditions mentioned
         therein. The expressions “at any time” and before the
         “judgment is pronounced” would indicate that the power                   F
         is very wide and can be exercised, in appropriate cases, in
         the interest of justice, but at the same time, the courts should also
         see that its orders would not cause any prejudice to the accused.
         18. Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all courts, including
         the Designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier,     G
         at any time before the judgment is pronounced and sub-sections
         (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after
         that addition or alteration. Needless to say, the courts can
         exercise the power of addition or modification of charges
14
     (2014) 11 SCC 538                                                            H
1128                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A              under Section 216 CrPC, only when there exists some
                material before the court, which has some connection or
                link with the charges sought to be amended, added or
                modified. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge
                must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded
                during the course of trial before the court.”
 B
                                                            (Emphasis supplied)
              19. In Jasvinder Saini v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)15, this
       Court dealt with the question whether the Trial Court was justified in
       adding a charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons
 C     who were charged under Section 304B of the IPC. Justice T S Thakur
       (as he then was) speaking for the Court, held thus:
                “11. A plain reading of the above would show that the court’s
                power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided
                such addition and/or alteration is made before the judgment
 D              is pronounced. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 216 deal with
                the procedure to be followed once the court decides to alter or
                add any charge. Section 217 of the Code deals with the recall of
                witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the court after
                commencement of the trial. There can, in the light of the above,
                be no doubt about the competence of the court to add or alter a
 E              charge at any time before the judgment. The circumstances in
                which such addition or alteration may be made are not,
                however, stipulated in Section 216. It is all the same trite
                that the question of any such addition or alternation would
                generally arise either because the court finds the charge
 F              already framed to be defective for any reason or because
                such addition is considered necessary after the
                commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence
                that may come before the court.”
                                                           (Emphasis supplied)
 G            20. From the above line of precedents, it is clear that Section 216
       provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or
       alter any charge. The use of the words “at any time before judgment is
       pronounced” in Sub-Section (1) empowers the court to exercise its
       powers of altering or adding charges even after the completion of
       15
 H          (2013) 7 SCC 256
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1129
  PRADESH & ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The alteration or             A
addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there was
an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination
of the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive
opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. The test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon
                                                                                 B
an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record
needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged
offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the
additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be
determined whether the accused may be convicted for the additional
charges. The court must exercise its powers under Section 216 judiciously        C
and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is
allowed to have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court’s power is
the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the addition or alteration
of charges. Sub-Section (4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be
adopted by the courts where prejudice may be caused.
                                                                                 D
       21. The appellant has relied upon a two-judge Bench decision of
this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra v The State16 to substantiate the
point that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC have not
been established. This Court while dealing with the nature of evaluation
by a court at the stage of framing of charge, held thus:
                                                                                 E
         “11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court
         is required to evaluate the material and documents on
         record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
         therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence
         of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At
         that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative     F
         value of the material on record. What needs to be considered
         is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence
         has been committed and not a ground for convicting the
         accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion
         founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive         G
         opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting
         the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against
         the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.”
                                                       (Emphasis supplied)
16
     (2008) 2 SCC 561                                                            H
1130            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A            22. In the present case, the High Court while directing the framing
       the additional charges has evaluated the material and evidence brought
       on record after investigation and held:
             “LW1 is the father of the de facto complainant, who states that
             his son in law i.e., the first accused promised that he would look
 B           after his daughter at United Kingdom (UK) and promised to provide
             Doctor job at UK and claimed Rs.5 lakhs for the said purpose
             and received the same and he took his daughter to the UK. He
             states that his son-in-law made him believe and received Rs.5
             lakhs in the presence of elders. He states that he could not mention
             about the cheating done by his son-in-law, when he was examined
 C           earlier. LW13, who is an independent witness, also supports the
             version of LW1 and states that Rs.5 lakhs were received by A1
             with a promise that he would secure doctor job to the complainant’s
             daughter. He states that A1 cheated LW1, stating that he would
             provide job and received Rs.5 lakhs. LW14, also is an independent
 D           witness and he supported the version of LW13. He further states
             that A1 left his wife and child in India and went away after
             receiving Rs.5 lakhs.
             Hence, from the above facts, stated by LWs. 13 and 14, prima
             facie, the version of LW1 that he gave Rs.5 lakhs to A1 on a
 E           promise that he would provide a job to his daughter and that A1
             did not provide any job and cheated him, receives support from
             LWs. 13 and 14. When the amount is entrusted to A1, with a
             promise to provide a job and when he fails to provide the
             job and does not return the amount, it can be made out that
             A1 did not have any intention to provide job to his wife and
 F           that he utilised the amount for a purpose other than the
             purpose for which he collected the amount from LW1, which
             would suffice to attract the offences under Sections 406 and
             420 IPC. Whether there is truth in the improved version
             of LW.1 and what have been the reasons for his lapse in not
 G           stating the same in his earlier statement, can be adjudicated
             at the time of trial.
             It is also evidence from the record that the additional charge sheet
             filed by the investigating officer, missed the attention of the lower
             court due to which the additional charges could not be framed.”
 H                                                          (Emphasis supplied)
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA 1131
  PRADESH & ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       23. The test adopted by the High Court is correct and in accordance      A
with decisions of this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth
respondent before this Court, depositions of PW 1 (LW 1), PW 5 (LW
12) and PW 6 (LW 13) and their cross-examination have been annexed.
The material on record supports the possibility that in April 2006, the
appellant demanded Rs 5,00,000/- from PW 1, who is the complainant,
                                                                                B
in order to secure a doctor’s job for the complainant’s daughter in the
United Kingdom. According to PW 1, he borrowed the amount from
PW 5 (brother-in-law of PW 1) and paid it to the appellant in the presence
of PW 5 and PW 6 (friend of PW 1). Without pronouncing on the
probative value of such evidence, there exists sufficient material on record
that shows a connection or link with the ingredients of the offences            C
under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, and the charges sought to be
added.
       24. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a
question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of
charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be done by the court            D
only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced.
However, for the purpose of framing of charge the court needs to prima
facie determine that there exists sufficient material for the commencement
of trial. The High Court has relied upon the materials on record and
concluded that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and
420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the reasons          E
that have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the impugned
order does not warrant any interference.
      25. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. The trial proceedings
pending before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli shall
continue.                                                                       F

       26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                G




                                                                                H