THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1527 OF 2009 DT.22.06.2010 Between: Mohd.Abdul Kaleem and six others. …Petitioners. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by P.P. ………………Respondent. O R D E R: In this revision petition the petitioners 1 to 7/A-4, A-5, A-15 to A–19 question order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of communal offences, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.296 of 2009 in S.C.No.359 of 2006 by which the lower court allowed petition filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C., framing additional charges against the accused for offences punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C., and Sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the unlawful activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended in the year 2004). This case relates to blasting of Task Force Office at Begumpet, Secunderabad by suicide bomber. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 302, 307 I.P.C., Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended in 2004). After committal, the lower court framed charges originally against the accused for all the above offences except for the offences under Section 153-A I.P.C., and Sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After examination of PWs.1 to 51 during trial, the then Presiding Officer was transferred from that court and the present Presiding Officer took charge. Even the present Presiding Officer examined PWs.52 to 56 during further trial. At this stage, the prosecution filed the present petition in the lower court for framing additional charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. The lower court came to the conclusion that on perusal of records and allegations in the charge sheet which are set out in the impugned order, there are grounds for framing additional charges against the accused for offences under Section 153-A I.P.C., and Sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is contended by the petitioners’ senior counsel that there is no additional material placed before the lower court for framing additional charges and that the present Presiding Officer of the lower court should have respected previous Presiding Officer’s framing of charges only on some Sections of law and omitted to frame charges under other Sections. The lower court in the impugned order observed that previously that court omitted to frame charges under Section 153-A I.P.C., and Sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is not as if the then Presiding Officer of the lower court passed any reasoned order for framing charges against the accused under certain sections of law only and for omitting to frame charges under other sections of law. Without a speaking order, the lower court previously framed charges omitting the above sections of law. Therefore, when there was no speaking order on record with regard to framing of charges or omission to frame charges, the question of subsequent Presiding Officer being bound by the previous order of that court does not arise. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that from the evidence of PWs.52 to 56 there is no further material to warrant framing of additional charges. The lower court is not precluded to examine other material on record including PWs.1 to 51 and also allegations in the charge sheet. The charge sheet includes not only final report filed under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., but also all the statements of witnesses and documents appended to the charge sheet. Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not limit power of the trial court to frame additional charges basing only on material which came on record during trial after framing of charges. Trial court can go through not only material which came on record subsequent to framing of charges but also other material which is available on record even before framing of charges. It is stated that most of the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution during trial. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petition was filed by the prosecution for framing of additional charges at almost fag end of the trial with a view to keep the accused in judicial custody for four more years, because framing of additional charges would lead to re-trial of the case fixing fresh schedule. Re trial is not the only method under Cr.P.C., to be followed after framing of additional charges. Section 217 Cr.P.C., enables the trial court and clothes the prosecution as well as the defence to recall certain witnesses for the purpose of further examination in chief and further cross examination. Of course right to recall witnesses under Section 217 Cr.P.C., is subject to the rider contained in Clause(a) therein. The lower court has to see whether such a right to recall witnesses is being properly exercised or mis-used and whether such recall was for the purpose of vexation or delay for defeating the ends of justice. Therefore, apprehension in the minds of the accused about prolonging of trial may not be correct. I see no merits in this revision. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU J., Dt.22.06.2010 tjs