[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 304/2008 HANUMAN PRASAD SANKHLA Vs. C.B.I. & ORS. DATE: 31.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Param Pawan for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Tyagi for the respondent CBI. **** The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.P.E. Cases), Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the application for amendment of the charge against the accused person in pending case No. 2/2001 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also the petitioner had preferred a misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 808/2003 against the order dated 10.06.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.P.E. Cases), Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 2/2001, by which the application of the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation was dismissed. [2] The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid misc. petition vide order dated 09.10.2006, observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file proper application before the trial Court at appropriate stage of the proceedings for arraying additional accused persons and for committal of the case, if any offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions is disclosed from the evidence which may be led in the case and in case such an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be decided expeditiously as per law without being influenced by the fact that this Court has declined to direct further investigation in the case under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel Mr. Tyagi, appearing for the respondent CBI that liberty which was given by this Court can only be availed after leading evidence and after establishing the fact for arraying additional accused persons for committal of the case and here in the instant case, the petitioner has only moved application for amendment of the charge which has rightly been rejected by the Court below. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and after carefully going through the order impugned dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Court below, this Court do not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the [3] record which requires any interference as the petitioner failed to lead evidence as indicated in the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 09.10.2006. This is not an appropriate stage for moving application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is only entitled to move such application if he requires any amendment in the charge for committal of the case after leading evidence, but at this stage, this Court do not find any merit in the revision petition. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/