THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.326 OF 2009 ORDER:- The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 26.06.2008, in C.C.No.22 of 2006 and Crl.M.P.No.663 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, Hyderabad. 2. In C.C.No.22 of 2006, a case for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 was taken on file and charges were also framed on 08.06.2007. While the matter was pending, Crl.M.P.No.663 of 2008 was filed for amendment of the charges contending that the name of only one company was mentioned and names of other finance companies were not mentioned. The learned Sessions Judge found that filing of the charge sheets in respect of the transactions relating to each financial establishment is necessary and as the charge sheet was filed relating to transaction of different financial institutions, it is not proper and consequently, the matter has been remitted back to the investigating agency directing registration of separate crimes in respect of transactions relating to each of the financial establishments and to file separate charge sheets. 3. Evidently, when charges have been framed and if the case cannot be proceeded against a particular financial institution, it is for the Court, at the end of the trial, to decide as to whether the contention is tenable or not, but however, having framed the charges and after taking the case for trial for serious offences, the Court can either alter the charge or add the charge, but at that stage, the Court cannot entirely wipe of the case and direct the prosecution to investigate and file separate charge sheet and consequently discharge the accused to face further investigation. If once an investigation is done and it has culminated into filing of the charge sheet and charges are framed, the Court has to decide it on merits but it is not inclined to alter or amend the charges as framed by the Court. At the end of the trial, it may give an opportunity to the Prosecution to proceed in accordance with law if at all there is any lacuna or any benefit available to the accused persons. 4. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not proper and the same is set aside and the Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case in C.C.No.22 of 2006 and dispose of according to law. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 20th December, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.326 OF 2009 Date:20.12.2011 AMD