I. Introduction

The power of criminal courts to frame, alter, or add charges is a vital procedural function in the criminal justice system. This power is codified under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and now finds place in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) under Section 248.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora and NCB v. Sajesh Sharma (2024), has drawn the line between permissible alteration of charges and impermissible deletion of charges that effectively amount to discharge of the accused. This judgment clarifies how Section 216 CrPC / Section 248 BNSS should be applied by trial courts, especially in serious offences like those under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

II. Statutory Background and Framework

1. Section 216 CrPC – Court may alter or add to any charge

“Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.”

This provision provides flexibility to criminal courts during trial. It acknowledges that errors or omissions in framing of charges may require correction in the interest of justice. However, the provision is silent on whether charges can be deleted, which has become the point of contention.

2. Section 248 of the BNSS – Corresponding Provision

Section 248 of the BNSS, 2023, replaces Section 216 CrPC without any material change in language or intent. It reads:

“The Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.”

Thus, the legislative intent behind both provisions is identical — to allow modification of charges for just trial, but not to allow quashing, discharge or deletion of charges that have been lawfully framed.

III. Factual Matrix of the Case

The case arose out of two connected appeals involving serious charges under the NDPS Act:

1. In Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, and
2. In NCB v. Sajesh Sharma,

both accused were initially charged under Sections 8(c), 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act, which deal with unlawful possession, manufacturing, and conspiracy relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

After charges were framed by Special Courts under Section 228 CrPC, the accused filed applications under Section 216 CrPC, contending that the substance seized was a “Schedule H drug” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and not a prohibited narcotic substance under the NDPS Act. They sought deletion of charges under the NDPS Act and a remand to the Magistrate under the D&C Act.

Shockingly, the Special Courts allowed these applications, deleted the NDPS charges, and remitted the matter to Magistrates, treating it as a minor offence. These orders formed the subject matter of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

IV. Core Legal Issues

The Supreme Court had to address the following critical questions:

1. Does Section 216 CrPC empower a court to delete charges after they have been framed under Section 228 CrPC?
2. Can an application under Section 216 be used as a substitute for a discharge application under Sections 227/239 CrPC?
3. Was the deletion of NDPS charges in the present case justified in law?

V. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Nature and Scope of Section 216 CrPC / Section 248 BNSS

The Court held that Section 216 CrPC is a procedural tool designed to alter or add to the charge, not to delete it. A deletion of charge is equivalent to a discharge, which must be done under Section 227 CrPC in sessions trials or Section 239 CrPC in warrant cases — both of which require a distinct procedural mechanism and judicial satisfaction on merits.

“Section 216 empowers the Court to add or alter charges but does not entitle the accused to seek discharge or quashing of charges under its guise.”
– Supreme Court, Para 173

This clarifies that a request for deletion of a charge framed under Section 228 CrPC cannot be entertained under Section 216, since it undermines the process of trial and circumvents the discharge mechanism.

2. Impropriety of Trial Courts’ Orders

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the approach of the Special Judges, stating that once charges are framed after satisfaction of the court under Section 228 CrPC, they cannot be undone merely because the accused brings a different legal perspective or reargues factual aspects.

“Trial Courts acted without jurisdiction… the power under Section 216 does not permit discharge disguised as alteration.”

By doing so, the trial courts:

• Bypassed the legal procedure for discharge,
• Exercised appellate functions without jurisdiction, and
• Diluted the seriousness of offences under the NDPS Act.

3. Precedents Cited by the Court

The Court relied on several landmark judgments to support its reasoning:

(i) K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283

Held: “Once charge is framed, the court becomes functus officio as regards discharge. Section 216 cannot be invoked to defeat a validly framed charge.”

(ii) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460

This case emphasized that the test for framing charges is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but only prima facie suspicion, and interference with framed charges must be extremely limited.

(iii) State v. Suman Sood, (2001) 5 SCC 529

Clarified that alteration is permissible to correct legal or factual errors but not to nullify the very basis of trial.

VI. Final Verdict

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court held:

• The NDPS charges had been rightly framed by the Special Court under Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
• The subsequent orders of deletion of charges and remission to the Magistrate were without legal sanction.
• The applications filed under Section 216 CrPC were misconceived and abuse of process.
• The Supreme Court restored the original charges and directed the Special Courts to proceed with trial under the NDPS Act.

VII. Comparative Chart: Section 216 CrPC vs Section 248 BNSS

Aspect	Section 216 CrPC	Section 248 BNSS
Language	“Alter or add any charge before judgment”	Same
Deletion of Charges	Not permitted	Not permitted
Framing of Charges	After satisfaction under Section 228 CrPC	Under Section 250 BNSS
Discharge Mechanism	Sections 227/239 CrPC	Sections 262/263 BNSS
Judicial Interpretation	No backdoor discharge through Section 216	Applies similarly to Section 248
Purpose	To correct omissions/errors during trial	Same

VIII. Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces multiple legal principles:

✅ Doctrine of Procedural Discipline

Judicial powers under procedural law must be exercised strictly within the confines of the statute, and not by judicial creativity or convenience.

✅ Prevention of Abuse of Process

Section 216 CrPC cannot be invoked by accused to relitigate the stage of framing charges or seek discharge.

✅ Special Statutes Must Be Respected

The NDPS Act, being a special penal law, requires strict adherence to procedures. Courts cannot sidestep its rigour by invoking general criminal procedure tools.

✅ Guidance for Trial Courts under BNSS

With the coming into force of BNSS, the reasoning of this judgment equally applies to Section 248, maintaining judicial discipline in framing and alteration of charges.

IX. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumar Arora and Sajesh Sharma marks a crucial reaffirmation of the boundaries of judicial power under procedural law. By holding that alteration of charge does not include deletion, and that such deletion cannot be used as a tool for post-charge discharge, the Court has clarified a gray area and protected the integrity of trial procedure.

The decision also serves as guidance under the new BNSS regime, where Section 248 carries forward the same intent as Section 216 CrPC. This judgment ensures that the procedural checks on criminal trials remain robust, preventing abuse and ensuring justice is neither delayed nor derailed.