(1) CRI. WP. 82.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2010 Dnynoba S/o Kashinath Palvade and others .. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.D. Rakh, APP. for the respondent no.1-State ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] This Criminal Writ Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangakhed dated 4.1.2010, directing additional charge to be framed against the petitioners-accused and further giving liberty to both the prosecution as well as the defence, to recall and re-examine the witnesses or for recording further evidence, if necessary. 2] I find no illegality in this order, although it is passed rather belatedly, when the case was already fixed for delivery of the judgment. This shows that the parties underwent the trial for the earlier charge, and when the Court was about to pronounce it's judgment, the prosecution made the (2) CRI. WP. 82.2010 application seeking to amend the charge for adding one more charges. The learned Magistrate of the Court below probably realised that the charge framed earlier was defective, as it did not include the allegation in respect of the incident that occurred on 4.10.2006. He however, mentioned that when the evidence was recorded, the prosecution witnesses stated about the incident that allegedly occurred on 4.10.2006 and the defence cross-examined them on that incident. In other words, the Court below clearly indicated that though the parties led evidence in respect of the incident that allegedly took place on 4.10.2006, a separate charge in respect of that incident was not framed and so, additional charge was formally put to the accused. 3] In such situation, there is apparently no prejudice caused to the petitioners-accused, because they would have another opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, if recalled for giving additional evidence, besides the petitioners-accused would have their independent right to call the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. The impugned order is not illegal and therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp