The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) concerning an application seeking addition of charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The Court held that the ED’s application could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it lacked locus standi, but found that the material presently available did not justify adding the proposed charges.
Justice Sanjay Parihar delivered the judgment on September 25, 2026, in Directorate of Enforcement v. Md. Saleem Khan and Others, Crl R No. 25/2026. The petition challenged orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI Cases), Srinagar, relating to the proposed addition of charges.
The proceedings arose from a CBI investigation concerning alleged irregularities involving funds received by the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The judgment records the petitioner’s case that the BCCI had remitted approximately ₹112.13 crore to the JKCA. It further records that approximately ₹43.69 crore was allegedly misappropriated during the period under investigation. The CBI charge-sheet ultimately proceeded on allegations under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC.
The ED later sought addition of Sections 411 and 424 RPC, relying on material already forming part of the CBI charge-sheet. Section 411 concerns dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property, while Section 424 deals with dishonest or fraudulent concealment or removal of property, or assistance in such concealment or removal. The Trial Court rejected the ED’s application, including on the ground that the ED lacked locus to seek addition of charges.
The High Court noted that the Trial Court had earlier treated the ED’s application as maintainable after liberty had been granted to approach it. The High Court therefore found that the application should have been examined on its merits rather than rejected solely for lack of locus standi.
Justice Sanjay Parihar explained that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) gives the criminal court power to alter or add a charge before judgment, but that power depends upon material showing the ingredients of the proposed offence.
“Section 216 CrPC is a procedural source of power to alter or add a charge; it cannot supply substantive ingredients of an offence which are otherwise absent from the material on record.”
The Court separately examined Section 411 RPC. It observed that participation in the alleged principal transaction of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is not, by itself, equivalent to subsequently receiving or retaining property with knowledge that it was stolen. On the material before it, the Court found no distinct receipt or retention sufficient to support the proposed Section 411 charge.
The Court also considered the CBI’s position that its investigation did not yield material warranting invocation of Sections 411 and 424 RPC. The High Court ultimately found that the material forming part of the CBI charge-sheet did not, at that stage, prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of those additional offences.
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition. It set aside the Trial Court’s finding that the ED had no locus standi to move the application seeking addition of charges.
However, the Court rejected the ED’s substantive request to add charges under Sections 411 and 424 RPC, holding that the material presently available did not prima facie establish the necessary ingredients of either provision.
The Court clarified that this rejection was confined to the material presently before the Trial Court. If further evidence emerges during the trial warranting alteration or addition of charges, the Trial Court may exercise its powers under Section 216 CrPC in accordance with law and after following the required procedural safeguards.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Md. Saleem Khan and Others
Case Number: Crl R No. 25/2026; CrlM No. 625/2026
