Magistrate Can Alter Notice of Accusation in Summons Cases Even at Final Arguments Stage; Power Under Section 251 CrPC Includes Authority to Correct Charges Before Judgment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Ramesh Arora v. Union of India
Date of Judgment: 06.10.2026
Citation: CRM-M-24991-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Magistrate possesses the inherent incidental power to alter or amend a notice of accusation served under Section 251 CrPC in a summons case, even after completion of prosecution and defence evidence, provided the trial has not culminated in a final judgment. The Court observed that the power to serve a notice of accusation necessarily includes the authority to correct or amend it where required to bring the accusation into conformity with the complaint and evidence. The objection regarding the applicability of Section 216 CrPC to summons cases does not defeat this incidental power. Such alteration is permissible where the accused is afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself and no prejudice is established.
Summary: The petitioner challenged an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, permitting amendment of the notice of accusation in a prosecution under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, concerning allegations relating to a substandard Heparin Sodium injection.
The original notice of accusation was served on 23.03.2018. After prosecution evidence, examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and defence evidence had been completed, the prosecution sought its amendment. The Magistrate allowed the application on 03.03.2022 and issued an amended notice on 25.04.2022.
The petitioner contended that Section 216 CrPC was inapplicable to summons cases and that amendment at the stage of final arguments caused serious prejudice.
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court relied upon Girraj Prasad Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 13 SCC 674, and the doctrine of implied powers discussed in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409. The Court held that the power under Section 251 CrPC to serve a notice of accusation carries with it the incidental authority to amend such notice.
The Court further found that the original notice materially differed from the allegations in the complaint, whereas the amended notice accurately reflected the prosecution’s case and the evidence already recorded. Since the accused was afforded an opportunity to further cross-examine witnesses but chose not to exercise it, no prejudice could be attributed to the amendment. The Court clarified that the power to alter an accusation rests with the trial court and cannot be claimed as a vested right by either party.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and upheld the Magistrate’s order dated 03.03.2022 permitting amendment of the notice of accusation, along with the consequential amended notice dated 25.04.2022.
The Court held that alteration of the notice of accusation at the final arguments stage was legally permissible, as the trial had not concluded and the amendment merely brought the accusation into conformity with the existing complaint and evidence.