IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4192 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4192 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4192 OF 2007 Ranjit Maniklal Shah .... Applicant versus Arvind Maniklal Shah & anr....... Respondent. Shri M.S.Mohite for he applicant. Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent no.1. Mr. P.A.Pol APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 21ST JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 21ST JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 21ST JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The applicant is the accused, wheres the respondent no.1 is the complainant. The accused and the complainant are real brothers. Both are dealing in cloth and have their shop nearby. A complaint was filed by the respondent no.1 stating therein that he had placed an order with M/s. Madhur Prints in Surat and when the goods were despatched, the transporter had been to the shop of the respondent, but as the same was closed he enquired with the applicant/accused. After perusing the bill and the receipt, the applicant informed the concerned labourer that the goods are ordered by him and thus induced the transporter to hand over the possession of the goods. A complaint thus was filed under sections 406 ands 420 of IPC. The trial court issued process only under section 406 IPC. After recording of the evidence and also the statement of the accused under section 313, it was revealed that no charge under section 420 IPC has been framed. Thus the trial court altered the charge by adding section 420 of IPC in addition to section 406 IPC. Aggrieved by the alteration of charge, a revision was carried by the applicant before the Sessions judge and on rejection of the revision the present application has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Perusal of the order passed by the Sessions judge reveals that as the charge has been altered, the Sessions Judge has directed the Magistrate to afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in relation to the altered charge framed under section 420 of IPC. It is thus clear that whatever prejudice the applicant could have suffered on account of alteration of charge, has been set out by issuing the said direction. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as he had already taken a defence based on framing of charge only under section 406, addition of charge at a later stage under section 420, is bound to prejudice the defence. The learned counsel has also tried to point out that on the basis of evidence recorded no case is made out under section 420 IPC. I do not propose to go into the merit of the case at this stage, as what is challenged is alteration of charge. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the matter, I decline to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Judge. 4. Perused the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the revision. The same does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482. Hence application is rejected. ......