C.B.I.versusKARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN

                       [2014] 3 S.C.R 588

A                          C.B.I.
                             v.
                   KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2009)

                        MARCH 4, 2014
B
     [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                              D

       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
  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]
         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.
D
      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 convicted by
E the Designated Court and this Court by its judgment
  recorded on 21.3.2013 confirmed the conviction of 98
  accused persons. [para 16] [601-G-H]

       Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of
F Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCALE 1; Ibrahim Musa Chauhan@
  Baba Chauhan vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCALE
  207; Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani@A.S. Mubarak S. vs. State
  of Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCALE 272; State of Maharashtra
  vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul 2013 (4) SCALE 401; Sanjay Dutt
  (A-117) vs. The State of Maharashtra through CBI (STF),
G Bombay 2013 (4) SCALE 462 ·referred to.
      1.5 The supplementary charge-sheet was filed
  against the respondent accused for offence of criminal
  conspiracy as well as for offences punishable uls 3(3) of
H TADA Act and a list of additional witnesses and
         C.B.I. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                 591


documents was enclosed with that. The Designated               A
Court framed charge of criminal conspiracy against the
respondent u/s 120-B IPC read with s. 3(3) of TADA Act
but, inadvertently, the original charge of criminal
conspiracy u/s 3(2) of TADA Act re,ad with s.120-B and
other offences, was not mentioned. ·ln the circumstances,      B
this is a fit case where the court QJ,lght to have exercised
its powers u/s 216 CrPC and allowed the application
dated 26.12.2009 filed by CBI for alteration of charge.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The
application preferred by CBI u/s 216 CrPC would stand          C
allowed and the Designated Court is directed to further
proceed with the case in accordance with law. [para 17-
18] [602-F-H; 603-A-B]
                    Case Law Reference:
                                                               D
    2013 (7) SCR 340         referred to          para 12
    AIR 1943 PC 192          referred to          par~ 13

    AIR 1954 SC 266          referred to          para 15
    2013 (4) SCALE 1         referred to          para 15      E
    2013 (4) SCALE 207       referred to          para 15
    2013 (4) SCALE 272       referred to          para 15
    2013 (4) SCALE 401       referred to          para 15      F
    2013 (4) SCALE 462       referred to          para 15
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1127 of 2009.
                                                               G
    From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2009 of the
Designated Court for Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Mumbai in
BBC No. 2 of 2008.

    Sidharth Luthra, ASG, A.K. Kaul, G.S. Bedi, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, BV. Bairam Das for the Appellant.                      H
    592      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A       Satbir Pillania, Somvir Deswal. Anil K. Chopra for the
    Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in this case,
B concerned with... the legality of the order passed by the
  Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bomb Blast
  Case, Greater Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the
  Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') under Section
  216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') for
C addition of the charges punishable under Section 302 and other
  charges under the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the
  Explosives Act read with Section 120-B IPC and also under
  Section 3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
  (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act').
D
       2. The city of Mumbai and its surrounding areas witnessed
  a series of bomb blasts on 12 .3.1993, whereby 257 persons
  were killed, 713 persons got injured and extensive damage to
  properties worth approximately Rs.27 crores was caused. The
  State Police registered 27 criminal cases. On 4.11.1993, a
E single charge-sheet was filed in the Designated Court against
  189 accused persons, of which 44 were shown as absconding.
  Investigation from the State Police was transferred to CBI on
  19.11.1993 and the CBI registered Case Crime No. RC 1 (S)/
  93/STF/BB. CBI, later, submitted supplementary reports before
F the Designated Court under Section 173(8) CrPC and the case
  was registered as Court Case No. BBC-1 of 1993. Permission
  for further investigation was obtained by the CBI from the
  Designated Court on 25.11.1993. During the course of
  investigation, the involvement of the respondent accused, by
G name Karimullah Osan Khan, was disclosed and efforts were
  made to arrest him. The Designated Court issued proclamation
  against him and, on 5.8.1994, he was declared as a proclaimed
  offender. Later, the Designated Court, on 8.9.1994, issued
  warrant of arrest against him.
H
            C.B.I. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                    593
                 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     3. The Designated Court framed a common charge of                A
criminal conspiracy on 10.4.1995 against all the accused
persons present before the Court and also against the
absconding accused persons, including the respondent -
accused No. 193 and all other unknown persons, under the
following Sections:                                                   B
      "1.    Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section
             120(8) of IPC r/w section 3(2) (i) (ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5
             and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and r/w Section 302,
             307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201and212 of'IPC.
                                                                      c
      2.     Section 3 and 7 r/w Section 25(1A). [1 B(a)] of the
             Arms Act, 1959.

      3.     Section 9-B (1),(a),(b),(c) of the Explosives Act
             1884.                                                    D
      4.     Section 3, 4(a), (b), 5 and 6 of the Explosives
             Substances Act, 1908.

      5.     Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public
             Property Act, 1984.                                      E
The Designated Court then issued an order dated 19.6.1995
for examination of the witnesses, including the absconding
accused no.193, in accordance with the provisions contained
in Section 299 CrPC.
                                                                      F
     4. Respondent accused No. 193, who was absconding
was, later, arrested in Mumbai on 22.8.2008, and was
remanded to the police custody and further investigation was
carried on. During further investigation, the respondent accused
made a confession which was recorded under Section 15 of              G
the TADA Act, wherein he had admitted his role in the criminal
conspiracy, for which the above mentioned common charges
had been framed. On completion of investigation, a
supplementary charge-sheet dated 17.11.2008 was filed
against the respondent accused for offence of criminal                H
    594        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A conspiracy as well as the offence punishable under Section 3(3)
  of TADA Act and lists of additional witnesses and add;tional
  documents were enclosed along with the supplementary
  charge-sheet. On 1.1.2009, the Designated Court framed
  charge of conspiracy against the respondent accused under
B Section 120-B IPC read with 1Section 3(3) of TADA Act but, it
  is the statement of CBI, that inadvertently the original charge
  of criminal conspiracy under Section 3(2) of TADA Act read
  with Section 120-B IPC and other offences applicable were not
  mentioned. On 3.2.2009, the evidence was closed by the CBI
C and on 6.2.2009, the statement of the respondent accused was
  recorded. CBI, as already indicated, filed an application on
  26.2.2009 under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charge by
  additiqn of the charges punishable under Section 302 IPC and
  other charges under the IPC and the Explosives Act read with
  Section 120-B IPC and Section 3(2) of the TADA Act. The
D Designated Court, on 28.4.2009, rejected the application filed
  by the CBI, against which this appeal has been preferred.

        5. The Designated Court framed the following points while
    examining the application preferred by the CBI:
E
          A)      Is there any evidence existing on record to add
                 further charges against the accused for agreeing
                 to commit the terrorist acts by use of explosive
                 substances at various places in Mumbai and for that
                 purpose bringing the arms to Indian shore in
F
                 furtherance of the implementation of the criminal
                 conspiracy?
          B)      Is there any evidence on record to add charges of
                 causing death and attempt to cause death, injuries
G                to human bodies and loss to properties during
                 commission of terrorist acts by use of explosive
                 substances?

          C)      Whether the charges as alleged deserve to be
H                altered and added as prayed?
            C.B.I. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                      595
                 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    6. In support of the application, CBI highlighted the follo,wing   A
grounds:

      (1)     Conspiracy was hatched to cause communal
             disturbance and destabilizing the Government.
             Huge quantity of arms and ammunitions was
                                                                       B
             smuggled into India by the accused persons and
             used at different places in Mumbai. 27 cases were
             registereti and single charge~sheet came to be
             filed against 189 accused persons in the
             Designated Court, out of which 44 accused were
             shown as absconding in the said case No. BBC 1/           c
             1993.

      (2)      The Designated Court framed charges for
             conspiracy on 1OA.1995 against the accused
             persons who were present before it at that time, as       D
             well as against the respondent accused whose
             involvement was disclosed and charge was also
             framed against him, being absconding accused.

      (3)     The prosecution moved an application M.A. 139/
                                                                       E
             94 under Section 299 CrPC and the Court granted
             the liberty to join the absconding accused in the trial
             whenever he is arrested and the said evidence was
             also recorded under Section 299 CrPC against the
             respondent accused vide order dated 19.6.1995.
                                                                       F
      (4)     The prosecution adduced evidence to show that
             the respondent was deeply involved in the criminal
             conspiracy which was hatched by the accused
             persons to commit various terrorist activities and
             the respondent accused actively participated in the       G
             said criminal conspiracy.

      (5)     Mohd. Usman, who was an approver, was
             examined for charge punishable under Section
             120-B IPC and the said witness identified the
                                                                       H
    596         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A                 respondent and also narrated his role in landing of
                  arms by other co-accused for the prime accused
                  Tiger Memon. Further, it was pointed out that the
                  accused had participated in the conspiratorial
                  meeting held by Memon before proceeding for
B                 landing work.

          (6)      The accused also aided the main accused twice
                  in the landing operations and also in smuggling of
                  various arms and ammunitions in Mumbai. Further,
                  the respondent had also confessed about his
c                 participation in landing arms and also about his
                  fleeing to Pakistan to escape from clutches of law.

          (7)     The confession made by him was proved by
                 witnesses SP Mr. Sujit Pandey and Dy. S.P. Mr.
D                Tyagi and that the confession was voluntary and is
                 admissible in evidence, when read along with the
                 confession of others.

       7. Defence opposed the prayer for alteration of charges
                                                    •
E stating that the same would prejudice the accused and the
  intention is to delay the trial proceedings and to see that the
  accused languishes in jail Further, it was pointed out that the
  abscondance is not a ground for alteration of charges. Further,
  it was also stated that the prosecution is trying to compel the
F court to appreciate the entire evidence at the fag end of the trial
  and pointed out that even the evidence already adduced
  required corroboration. The evidence already recorded, it was
  pointed out, would not show that the respondent was a party to
  the criminal conspiracy and that he had committed any act
  described by Section 3(2) of TADA Act. Further, it was also
G pointed out that the order passed by the Court on 6.2.2009 in
  respect of other accused persons has no bearing when an
  application under Section 216 CrPC is being examined, which
  has to be examined independently, on the basis of the materials
  available in that case.
H
            C.8.1. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                    597
                 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     8. We heard Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned 'Additional            A
Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant and Shri Satbir
Pillania, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at
length. Learned counsel highlighted their respective stand
placing reliance on the materials already on record as well as
on the interpretation of Section 216 CrPC.                            8

     9. We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the scope
of Section 216 CrPC and the power of the Court to alter or add
to the charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. We
may point out that the following are the reasons given by the
Designated Court in rejecting the application:                        C

      (a)    The application is moved after closure of evidence
             and there is delay in the matter.

      (b)     The charge could not be framed against                  D
             absconding Respondent.

      (c)     The order dated 06.2.2009 in SLP (Crl.) No. 569/
             2009 titled CBI V. Abu Salem Ansari & Anr. and
             order dated 02.12.2008 of the Designated Court is
             final; and charges against the Respondent were           E
             distinct.

      (d)      The voluntariness of the confession of the
              Respondent has to be tested in law at Trial Court.
                                                                      F
      (e)     The evidence of Mohd. Usman Ahmed Jan Khan
             is not adequate.

      (f)     There is no sufficient material on record to indicate
             that the accused can be charged for being member
             of the criminal conspiracy and it is not the case of     G
             prosecution that the accused himself took any
             active part in commission of any terrorist act as
             were done by other accused who are already
             charged and convicted for individual acts in earlier
             Trial BBC 1/93.                                          H
    598         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A         (g)     The delay in pursuing proper remedies at
                 appropriate time has become the order of the day
                 on the part of the prosecution which cannot be
                 appreciated.

          (h)      Still there is no material to indicate that the
B
                 accused was member of any such assembly which
                 had agreed to commit terrorist acts m Mumbai or
                 anywhere else. Even no shred of any earlier piece
                 of evidence or witness is cited in the charge sheet
                 nor is the statement of any witnesses annexed
c                therewith.

            10. We may have to examine whether the reasons stated
     above would be sufficient enough to reject the application filed
     by CBI under Section 216 CrPC. As already pointed out,
D    initially, the investigation was started by the State Police and,
    later, it was entrusted to CBI and it was during the investigation
    by CBI that the involvement of the respondent accused was
    disclosed on 5.8.1994 and a warrant of arrest and proclamation
    was issued against him. On 19.6.1995, the Designated Court
E   permitted examination of witnesses, in which the respondent's
    name was also recorded but, since he was absconding, he
    could not be examined. 7 accused persons, including the
    respondent, who were absconding, were later arrested on
    various days and as against 6 absconding accused persons
F   trials proceeded based on the charges framed by the
    Designated Court, as originally contemplated. However, only
    against the respondent, with same materials in hand, charges
    were framed distinctly without invoking Section 3(2) of TADA
    Act read with Section 120-B IPC and other provisions of IPC.
    The Designated Court failed to appreciate that the
G   supplementary charge-sheet dated 17 .11.2008 filed against the
    respondent accused was in continuation of the original charge-
    sheet filed on 4.11.1993 and the list of witnesses annexed to
    the supplementary charge-sheet was shown as hst of additional
    witnesses. Further, the entire material available at that time,
H
          C.B.I. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                        599
               [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
which led to the framing of charges during abscondance of the           A
respondent accused and other accused persons, is available
to the prosecution to be used against the respondent at the
stage of charge or at the stage of modification of the charge.

     11. Apart from the above factual situation, it should be
                                                                        B
remembered that it is a case where the respondent accused
was absconding for about 15 years and, therefore, the delay
cannot be attributed to that of the prosecution alone and, it is
in the above circumstances, we have to examine whether the
application filed under Section 216 CrPC, could be rejected.
Section 216 CrPC reads as follows :                                     C

           "216. (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
                                                                        0
     explained to the accused.

           (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such
     that proceeding 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          E
     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.

            (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding   F
     immediately 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            G
     charge is one for the prosecution of which. previous
     sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded
     with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has
     been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts
                                                                        H
    600      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A         as those on which the altered or added charge is founded."

         12. This Court in Jasvinder Saini and others v. State
    (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256, had an
    occasion to examine the scope of Section 216 CrPC and held
    as follows:
8
        "11.. . ..... the court's power to alter or add any charge is
        unrestrained provided such addition and/or alteration is
       made before the judgment is pronounced. Sub-sections (2)
       to (5) of Section 216 deal with the procedure to be followed
c      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
D      add or alter a 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
E      finds the charge 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.

             12. In the case at hand the evidence assembled in
F      the course of the investigation and presented to the trial
       court was not found sufficient to call for framing a charge
       under Section 302 IPC ..... ."
      13. The Privy Council, as early as in Thakur Shah v.
G Emperor AIR 1943 PC 192, spoke on alteration or addition of
  charges as follows :
       "The alteration or addition is always, of course, subject to
       the limitation that no course should be taken by reason of
       which the accused may be prejudiced either because he
H
          C.B.I. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                    601
               [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    is not fully aware of the charge made or is not given full     A
    opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence
    open to him on the charge finally preferred."

     14. Section 216 CrPC gives considerable powers to the
Trial Court, that is, even after the completion of evidence,       8
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 appropriate cases, in the interest of justice,    C
but at the same time, the Courts should also see that its orders
would not cause any prejudice to the accused.

      15. Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all Courts,
including the designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge
framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced D
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 under Section 216 CrPC, only when there exists
some material before the Court, which has some connection · E
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. (See Harihar Chakravarty
v. State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 266. Merely because F
the charges are altered after conclusion of the trial, that itself
will not lead to the conclusion that it has resulted in prejudice
to the accused because sufficient safeguards have been built
in in Section 216 CrPC and other related provisions.

     16. We may point out, so far as the present case is           G
concerned, with regard to the incident occurred on 12.3.1993
(Bombay blast), trial in respect of 123 accused persons had
been concluded, out of which 100 persons were convicted by
the Designated Court and this Court vide its judgment recorded
on 21.3.2013 confirmed the conviction of 98 accused persons        H
    602          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014} 3 S.C.R.

A in the following cases:

          i.      Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of
                  Maharashtra cited as 2013 (4) SCALE 1;

          ii.     Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan vs. State
B                 of Maharashtra cited as 2013 (4) SCALE 207;

          iii.    Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S. vs.
                  State of Maharashtra cited as 2013 (4) SCALE
                  272•
                      '
c         iv.     State of Maharashtra vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul cited
                  as 2013 (4) SCALE 401; and

          v.      Sanjay Dutt (A-117) vs. The State of Maharashtra
                  through CBI (STF), Bombay cited as 2013 (4)
D                 SCALE 462."
       17. Taking note of all those aspects and the fact that the
  respondent was declared as a proclaimed offender and was
  absconding for more than 15 years and sufficient materials are
E already on record and all elements of the crime are
  interconnected and interrelated, the Court cannot simply
  discard the confession made by him on 27.8.2008 during
  investigation, which was recorded under Section 15 of TADA
  Act, wherein he had admitted his role in the criminal conspiracy,
F of course, that has to be dealt with in accordance with law.
  Following that, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed
  against the respondent accused for offence of criminal
  conspiracy as well as for offences punishable under Section
  3(3) of TADA Act and a list of additional witnesses and
G documents was enclosed with that. The Designated Court
  framed charge of criminal conspiracy against the respondent
  undE!r Section 120-B IPC read with Section 3(3) of TADA Act
  but, inadvertently, the original charge of criminal conspiracy
  under Section 3(2) of TADA Act read with Section 120-B and
  other offences, was not mentioned.
H
          C.B.I. v. KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN                       603
               [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     18. Looking into all those aspects, in our view, this is a fit   A
case where the Court ought to have exercised its powers under
Section 216 CrPC and allowed the application dated
26.12.2009 filed by CBI for alteration of charge. Consequently,
the impugned order is set aside. The application preferred by
CBI under Section 216 CrPC would stand allowed and the                B
Designated Court is directed to further proceed with the case
in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
      19. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
RP.                                              Appeal allowed.      C