1 Cri.Appln.813 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 813 OF 2011 Hemant Rajendra Bhatt ... Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/by M/s. Law Global, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.N. Salvi, Advocate for respondent no. 1/CBI. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 25, 2011 P.C. Heard. 2. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 17.6.2011 while dealing with the matter noticed that the charge framed was not in court record. The counsel did not dispute of such situation that in the past charge was framed. Unfortunately, both the counsel could not place the copy of the charge, if any they have. Consequently the learned Judge allegedly reconstructed the charge. Though terminology used by the learned Judge 2 Cri.Appln.813 of 2011 is not correct, however, he is not debarred from exercising such powers. This is more clearly illustrated in Section 464 of Cr.PC.. which provides for protection of such omission/s. 3. The further grievance put up by the learned counsel is that the learned Judge based on the framing of charge after evidence dated 17.6.2011 may not allow the accused applicant to recall the witnesses if any. In the light of directions of this court dated 30.8.2010 in Criminal Application No. 1824 of 2010 to expeditiously dispose of the proceedings within six months. I quite see this situation may hamper the applicant's rights. However, the learned Judge seized with the matter, shall naturally take precaution including seeking extension from this court. 4. With the above observations, Criminal application disposed of as dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)