1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1996 OF 2010 (Ramesh Sahadeo Patil .vs. State) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 28th June, 2011. Heard Mr. Apurv De, Adv. for the applicant and Mrs. K. Deshpande, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant is questioning framing of charge by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur dt.6.2.2006 in Regular Criminal Case No.33 of 2005. It is the grievance of the applicant that the learned trial Judge mentioned the duration of alleged offence punishable under Section 409 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as 15.4.1992 to 16.4.2000 while the applicant/accused was working in the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. The learned Advocate for the applicant stated that the applicant was working as an Administrative Officer in the said Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur only during the period between 31.12.1999 to 20.4.2000 and thereafter, he was relieved of that post. Thus, it is the grievance of the learned Advocate for the applicant that the charge could have mentioned only the period during which the applicant was actually working in the Indira Gandhi Medical College and 2 Hospital, Nagpur as an Administrative Officer. It is contended that, apart from the duration so mentioned by the applicant, the applicant has not worked in the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur at any time. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted by the learned Trial Judge before the application u/s. 216 r/w. Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was decided and the charge was framed by the learned trial Judge. It appears in the impugned order that the learned trial Magistrate did consider the fact that the accused no.2 did not produce documents to establish his contention and that he is at liberty to disprove the contention of the prosecution since, according to him, he was not serving during the period alleged i.e. from 15.4.1910 to 16.12.2000. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the charge is already framed and the applicant is at liberty to move the trial Court with a prayer to alter the charge framed so as to limit the duration of alleged offence to the actual period of his service at Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. U/s. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is open for the learned trial Magistrate to alter the charge at any time before delivering the judgment. It is always just and proper for the applicant to move the trial Court and to bring the error, if any in the charge, to its notice, so as to rectify the same as early as possible since the delay in this regard may require the trial Magistrate to take further steps such as re-calling the witnesses etc. which may prolong the trial. The applicant is at liberty to move the learned trial Magistrate for alteration of the charge regarding period of offence mentioned if, according to him, he was temporarily serving as an Administrative Officer during the period from 31.12.1999 to 20.4.2010 only. The learned Chief 3 Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur shall consider the application, if any, for alteration of the charge. With these observations, the Criminal Application stands disposed of. JUDGE jais