Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.75 of 2010 Dated of Decision: April 22, 2010. Bodh Raj. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Heard. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of amendment/ modification of charge, which was affirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although an FIR was initially registered under Sections 353, 332, 333, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, but the police after completing the investigation concluded that only an offence under Sections 2 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was prima-facie made out, accordingly the petitioner was charge-sheeted. Later, on the application of the learned Prosecutor, it was modified and converted into Sections 353 and 333 besides 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code without any material on record. It is also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error affirming the order impugned and caused the prejudice to the petitioner. I have gone through and examined the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The complainant is a teacher. She alleged that when she was sitting on the lintel of the school building, she was setting the question papers during the school hours, she was assaulted by the petitioner and this caused grievous injuries to her and she was prevented/ deterred to discharge her official duty. The order of learned Sessions Judge has exhaustively dealt with the matter and his order is self explicit. In the instant case, keeping in view the statement of the complainant and her colleagues sitting besides her at the relevant time, are enough to frame 3 the charges as modified. There is a strong suspicion that the complaint was presented by the petitioner in official discharge of her duty and caused grievous hurt. The charge can be framed even on suspicion as held by the apex court in Supdt.& Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others [AIR 1980 SC 52]. Further the sifting of evidence at this stage is absolutely not permissible. Therefore, the present petition lacks merits, there is no abuse of process as alleged, hence dismissed. Cr.M.P.NOs.280 & 281/2010. Dismissed as infructuous. April 22, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.