Kerala High Court Allows Addition of Criminal Breach of Trust Charge in High-Profile Tampering Case

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J., overturns trial court's dismissal, enabling further prosecution under Section 409 IPC.

In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has overturned a decision by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad, allowing for the addition of charges under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving alleged tampering of evidence to secure acquittal. The case pertains to a criminal conspiracy involving a property clerk and an advocate to alter a material object, specifically an item of clothing, to influence the outcome of a judicial proceeding.

The decision by Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J., comes after the trial court initially dismissed a petition by the Assistant Public Prosecutor seeking to add a charge of criminal breach of trust by a public servant under Section 409 IPC. The trial court had previously ruled that the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC were not prima facie satisfied. However, the High Court found the trial court's findings unsustainable, citing that the actions of the accused, a public servant, fulfilled the criteria for criminal breach of trust as per Sections 405 and 409 IPC.

The High Court's judgment emphasized the wide discretionary powers granted to trial courts under Section 239(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), to alter or add charges at any stage before the pronouncement of judgment if it serves the interest of justice. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring a fair trial and preventing miscarriage of justice by addressing omissions in charge framing.

The petitioner, a journalist with prior involvement in related proceedings, successfully argued for the addition of the charge, despite being a third party to the case. The High Court recognized the petitioner's locus standi, drawing parallels with previous Supreme Court rulings that permit third parties to challenge orders in cases involving significant public interest.

The High Court's decision mandates the trial court to proceed with the additional charge under Section 409 IPC, underscoring that the prima facie case was made solely for the purpose of the petition under Section 239(1) of BNSS, without any final determination of guilt. The trial court retains the discretion to seek an extension from the Supreme Court if the addition of the charge affects the timeline for concluding the trial, as previously directed by the Supreme Court.

Bottom Line:

Section 216 of Cr.P.C empowers the trial court to alter or add to any charge even after the completion of evidence and arguments, provided it is in the interest of justice and does not prejudice the accused.

Statutory provision(s): Section 216 of Cr.P.C, Section 239 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 409 of IPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Anil K Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804852