IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.38976 OF 2009 1. AWADHESH SINGH, SON OF SASINDRA SINGH @ LALAN SINGH 2. ARVIND SINGH, SON OF GANGA NARAIN SINGH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHORAHA (MAHIPAR), POLICE STATION PANAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN …………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NATHEENI SINGH, SON OF LATE JUGAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHORAHA (MAHIPAR), POLICE STATION PANAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN …………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 08/12/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. An application was filed on 01.09.2008 by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for altering the charges and for adding Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons. The Trial Court by order dated 24.10.2008 partly allowed the application holding that there was sufficient evidence to make out a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but rejected the prosecution prayer to alter the charge by adding Section 27 of the Arms Act. Against the order dated 24.10.2008, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a Revision Case No. 24 of 2009. The Revisional Court upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is 2 that the application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed at a belated stage and that the Court ought not to have allowed the application for altering the charges at that stage. The Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court had correctly after assessing the evidence held that prima facie, a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and as such there is no justification for altering the charges and adding Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After perusing the orders impugned and the judgments referred to on behalf of the prosecution, I find that there is no illegality in the order. The Trial Court can alter the charges any time before signing the judgment and as such there is no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)