In a significant judgment delivered on April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court held that once charges are framed under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), courts cannot invoke Section 216 of CrPC—or its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 239—to delete those charges. The Court categorically ruled that Section 216 allows only the addition or alteration of charges, not deletion or discharge.

"The language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated," the bench observed.

Read Also:- SC Quashes Defamation Case Against Homebuyers for Peaceful Protest Against Builder

Background of the Case

The ruling came in the appeals filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the case titled Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., where charges had initially been framed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), for illegal possession and trafficking of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride—a psychotropic substance.

The Trial Court had later allowed an application under Section 216 CrPC, effectively deleting the NDPS Act charges and transferring the case to a Magistrate for trial under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act (D&C Act), citing that the substance in question did not appear in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach.

"At such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed," the judgment stated.

Read Also:- SC Quashes Delhi HC's Broad Injunction Against Alleged Defamatory Wikipedia Content About ANI

The judgment, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The Court emphasized that allowing deletion of charges after they are framed would disrupt the judicial process and go against the statutory scheme under CrPC.

The Supreme Court also upheld its earlier position that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, though not listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, is still covered under the NDPS Act due to its inclusion in the Schedule of the parent legislation.

“Both the Trial Court and the High Court committed an error in holding that the offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act is not made out… This is something not permissible within our criminal procedure,” the Court said.

The Court overruled the decisions of the Delhi High Court and Trial Court, which had held that since Buprenorphine Hydrochloride was not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, NDPS charges could not stand.

Section 216 CrPC allows only alteration or addition, not deletion of charges.

Once charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC, the trial must conclude either with an acquittal or conviction.

Read Also:- SC Bench Divided on Disciplinary Action Against AoR and Advocate Over Misconduct in Petition Filing

Deletion of charges mid-trial is not permitted under Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The analogue of Section 216 CrPC in BNSS is Section 239, which is also not meant for deletion of charges.

The Court upheld the ruling in Dev Narain v. State of U.P., which had similarly held that deletion of charges is beyond the scope of Section 216 CrPC.

“A charge once framed must lead either to an acquittal or conviction at the end of the trial and charges cannot be permitted to be deleted mid-trial,” the Court reaffirmed.

This judgment will have far-reaching implications on how courts handle charge framing and modification. It sets a clear precedent that once a trial has begun and charges are framed, courts cannot allow applications to remove those charges through procedural shortcuts.

In light of this, the Supreme Court directed that the accused in the present case be tried before the Special Judge, NDPS, as per the original charges, and reversed the High Court's ruling that had upheld the deletion of charges.

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.