1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No.285/2010 (Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 22.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ram Rakh Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court: By this revision petition, the order dated 03.03.2010 has been challenged. It is stated that charge was framed under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. On conclusion of trial, the matter was heard finally and placed for dictation of judgment. The dictation could not be completed due to paucity of time, as is coming out from the order dated 26.02.2010. The Court below altered the charge earlier framed. Pursuant to the order dated 03.03.2010, now the charge has been framed under Section 302 and alternatively under Section 306 of IPC. This is without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because at the instance of the Court itself, there is alteration of charge. No application was moved by the prosecution for alteration of charge, thus looking to the aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that looking to the dying declaration, it is 2 coming out that case under Section 302 of IPC is made out, thus for the ends of justice, the charges were altered by the Court below. It is stated that petitioner had never questioned alteration of charge rather on application moved by the prosecution not to lead evidence and to rely on the evidence already laid, petitioner herein prayed for time to indicate as to which of the prosecution witness is to be cross examined by him. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. From perusal of the order sheet, it comes out that on conclusion of trial, the arguments were heard and the matter was kept for finalization of the dictation of judgment. At that stage, the charges were altered so as to make charge under Section 302 of IPC also. The perusal of the impugned order dated 03.03.2010 does not show that a proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. From the aforesaid order, it is also not coming out that any application was moved by the prosecution for alteration of charge. It is however true that petitioner was at liberty to raise aforesaid objection but he failed to do so and perusal of the order further shows that he sought time to give list of those witnesses, whom he would like to cross examine. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, this petition can be decided, however, looking to the fact that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the 3 petitioner for alteration of charges, I am inclined to interfere in the matter. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 03.03.2010 is quashed and set aside. The Court below and the prosecution would, however, be at liberty to take up the matter for alteration of charges as per provisions of law and if the Court below deems it just and proper to alter the charges, more so looking to the dying declaration at Annex.4., then proper opportunity of hearing may be provided to the petitioner before that. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed of. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.5