Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39441 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Surendra Singh, Son of Late Maheshi Singh, 2. Rabitosh Singh. 3. Ashutosh Singh, both are sons of Surendra Singh. All are resident of Village Panchurukhi, P.S. Bheldi Distt. Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 07-05-2012 Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners, who are facing trial in Trial No. 1714 of 2009, arising out of Parsa P.S. Case No. 48 of 2005, have approached this court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 04.09.2010 whereby Cr. Revision No. 385 of 2009, which was preferred by the petitioners against the order of amendment of charge dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under [STATUTE] , the Police during investigation did not collect any material showing commission of offence under [STATUTE] , and as such, Police submitted charge sheet under Sections Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39441 of 2010 (3) dt.07-05-2012 2 / 2 2 341, 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance for the same offences, but during the trial, after three witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution under [STATUTE] , which was allowed by the learned Magistrate, and subsequently, the order of Magistrate was approved by the Revisional Court. Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, has assailed the order on the ground that during the investigation none of the witnesses save and except informant had disclosed commission of offence by the accused persons under [STATUTE] . He further submits that with oblique motive the informant of the case has taken steps for getting the charge amended. On aforesaid ground it has been prayed for setting aside both the orders. After going through the material available on record, I do not find any defect in either of the orders. The learned Magistrate has amended the charge on the basis of evidence brought during the trial. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 216

Statute Text:
Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code. Harbouring an offender who has escaped from custody, or whose apprehension has been ordered, If the offence be capital. Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say: if a capital offence — if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment — if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both. "Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India.