In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, the framing of charges marks a pivotal stage in trial proceedings. It indicates the court’s prima facie satisfaction that the accused is suspected of having committed an offence. However, recent judicial developments have stirred debate on whether such charges, once framed, can be deleted or altered to discharge the accused, especially through recourse to Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
This article delves into this issue in light of the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., 2025 INSC 498.
Background of the Case
The judgment arose from two criminal appeals: Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014, both concerning offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The central substance in question was Buprenorphine, a psychotropic drug listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.
The prosecution framed charges under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused, however, sought discharge by filing applications under Section 216 CrPC, arguing that Buprenorphine, not being in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, did not attract the NDPS provisions. The Special Judge accepted this argument and remitted the case to be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
This gave rise to a critical legal question: Can a charge once framed be deleted or nullified by invoking Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS?
Framing of Charges and Section 216 CrPC / Section 239 BNSS
What is Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 of BNSS?
Section 216 of the CrPC/ Section 239 of BNSS permits the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The power is discretionary and meant to correct technical errors or to bring the charge in conformity with the evidence presented.
However, it is not a provision to discharge an accused or to delete the charge altogether—especially when the same has been framed upon satisfaction of prima facie evidence under Section 228 CrPC/Section 251 BNSS.
The Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora decisively held that once charges have been framed under Section 228 CrPC (Section 251 BNSS), the remedy of seeking deletion of such charges by invoking Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS is impermissible.
Key Findings of the Court:
(1) Scope of Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS:
The term “alter” in Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS does not equate to “deletion” or “discharge.” The provision is intended to modify or add to charges based on developments during trial. It is not a substitute for discharge or acquittal.
(2) Prevention of Abuse:
The Court noted that permitting accused persons to use Section 216 as a backdoor method to secure discharge would open floodgates of litigation and stall trial proceedings. This misuse was evident in the present case where the accused sought to relitigate issues already decided at the stage of charge framing.
(3) Reference to K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024):
The Court reiterated its ruling in K. Ravi, where it was held that once charges are framed, an application seeking discharge cannot be entertained under Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS. Any such move amounts to abuse of process.
(4) Interpretation of “Alter”:
The Court interpreted “alter” to mean minor adjustments or additions, not deletions. Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS allows courts to alter charges but does not permit fresh discharge pleas after charges are framed, especially if one under Section 227 CrPC (Section 250 BNSS) was already rejected. Filing such pleas to delay trials is a misuse and a deplorable practice.
(5) BNSS Provisions:
Although this case was decided under the CrPC, the judgment draws relevance under the new BNSS framework too. Section 239 of BNSS mirrors the language and purpose of Section 216 CrPC, and thus the same judicial principles apply.
Significance of the Decision
1. Finality of Framing of Charges
The decision reinforces the sanctity of charge framing—once charges are framed based on prima facie evidence, the trial must follow. Any challenge should be made under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) or through Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, not by invoking Section 216 CrPC or Section 239 BNSS.
2. Prevents Tactical Delays
By closing the door on using Section 216 to delete charges, the judgment curtails delaying tactics adopted by accused persons. It upholds the right to a speedy trial and efficient administration of justice.
3. Clarifies Law under BNSS
With the introduction of BNSS, several procedural changes have come into effect. However, this judgment makes it clear that provisions like Section 239 BNSS, which replicate Section 216 CrPC, cannot be used to reverse the framing of charges.
4. Harmonisation with Precedents
The Court harmonised the law with earlier precedents such as State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), reiterating that a strong suspicion is enough to frame charges, and meticulous evaluation of evidence is not warranted at that stage.
The NDPS Context and Legislative Intent
The case also sheds light on the NDPS Act’s overriding nature. Section 80 of the NDPS Act makes it clear that its provisions are “in addition to” and “not in derogation of” other statutes such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
By holding that the accused in possession of Buprenorphine (a scheduled substance under NDPS) could not escape the rigour of Section 8 merely because the substance is not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, the Court reinforced the legislative intent to criminalise unauthorised possession, manufacture, or sale, regardless of technical schedules.
Critical Commentary
This judgment is a milestone in ensuring judicial discipline in criminal trials. It draws a necessary boundary between procedural tools and substantive outcomes. Section 216 CrPC (Section 239 BNSS) was never meant to undo what has already been judicially concluded during the framing of charges. The ruling also precludes parallel mini-trials under the guise of alteration of charges, thereby avoiding piecemeal adjudication.
However, one must also acknowledge the legitimate concerns raised in rare cases where a glaring legal error has occurred in framing charges. The Court rightly suggests that in such circumstances, higher judicial forums—particularly the revisional or constitutional courts—must be approached, not the trial court via Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. has categorically laid down that Section 216 CrPC/Section 239 BNSS cannot be used as a tool to delete or discharge charges once framed. The trial court’s role is to conduct a fair trial based on charges that reflect a prima facie case, not to second-guess its earlier decisions or respond to tactics of delay. The ruling safeguards the integrity of the criminal justice process and prevents the misuse of procedural provisions to obstruct the trial.
References
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., 2025 INSC 498
- K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2283
- Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1
- State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39
- Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
