IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 8 of 2010() ---------------------------------- SC.1287/04 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD .......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- AMBIKUTTAN @ AMBILI, S/O.RAMAN, T.C.33/184, NEAR POST OFFICE, ANAYARA DESOM, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.8 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th January 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.C.1287/2004 on the file Assistant Sessions Judge, Nedumangad. According to the petitioner charge was framed for the offence under Section 366 A of Indian Penal Code and after closing the evidence, including the defence evidence, at the time of hearing the case, learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case for amendment of the charge without a speaking order. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Crmc 8/10 2 Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that the prosecution evidence in the case was closed on 30/10/2009 and the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 10/11/2009 and defence evidence was closed on 4/12/2009 and at the time of hearing, case was adjourned stating that amendment of the charge is required, without showing what amendment is necessary and on the what basis and therefore, the order is to be quashed. Apart from producing Annexure- A1 proceeding paper, petitioner did not produce any material including the charge. It cannot be said that a Sessions Judge is not entitled to amend the charge after closing of the evidence, if interest of justice warrants, as provided under the Code. The question of a speaking Crmc 8/10 3 order would arise, when the charge is being amended. Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order passed by learned Sessions Judge adjourning the case finding that amendment of the charge is required. It is for the learned Sessions Judge to decide what amendment in the charge is necessary. If advised, petitioner is entitled to challenge the order amending the charge. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.