1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2010 Smt. Surekhabai w/o Balbhim Kasle and another .. Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ----- Shri E.P. Sawant, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Coram : P.R. Borkar, J. Date : 24.02.2010. P. C. 01. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 02. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 03. This writ petition is directed against the order pass by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2004 on 15.12.2009, thereby altering charge from Section 420 2 of IPC simplicitor to Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 04. It is the case of the petitioners that the alteration in charge is being carried out after defence witness is examined and after the matter was adjounred for argument. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in her order observed that it was revealed from the prosecution case, so also from the defence, that the complainant, though minor, a loan was taken in his name as a Secretary of Sow. Pratibhatai Sharadchandra Pawar Credit Society, Ranisawargaon, of which the accused were directors. The account was opened in the name of complainant in Parbhani District Central Cooperative Bank, Parbhani. It is also prosecution case that various documents were prepared in the name of the complainant and loan was availed in her name and using undue influence and threats of recovery of amounts, accused No.1 had sexually exploited the complainant. So, according to the learned trial judge, charge Exhibit 19, at serial No.3 ought to have been under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. in stead of under Section 420 IPC simplicitor. 3 05. Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Advocate for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that alteration of charge at such stage is likely to cause serious prejudice to the petitioners-accused and, therefore, such alteration ought not to be allowed. 06. After giving anxious consideration to the detail arguments advanced by both sides, in my opinion, what is proposed to be done by the impugned order is not addition of altogether a new charge, but only alteration of charge already framed so that liability under Section 34 to the same can be considered, as it is the prosecution case that the offence of cheating was committed in furtherance of common intention. 07. As per Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is empowered to alter or add to any charge any time before judgment is pronounced. In this case, alteration of the charge was proposed only to make the things clear to the accused and as indicated by the learned Judge himself, both sides would be entitled to recall any of the witnesses to meet the altered charge and thus there would not be any prejudice to the accused-petitioners. 4 Section 217 of Cr.P.C. is very clear and the accused can always exercise their right under Section 217 if they fill that witnesses are required for further cross examination. 08. In view of above, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial court immediately. pnd/criwpl52.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)