IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33983 of 2007 DEO KUMAR RAM, Son of Late Basudeo Paswan, resident of Village- Mahuari P.S. Sonhan (Bhabhua), District- Kaimur -------------------Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kameshwar Ram Son of Mukha Ram 3. Baldau Bind, Son of Shobh Nath Bind 4. Kesh Bind Son of Brij Bind 5. Brij Bind, Son of Late Naresh Bind, All are Opposite Party no. 2 to 5 are resident of Village- Mahuari, P.S. Sonhan ( Bhabhua), District-Kaimur—Opp.Parties. ----------- 06 08-11-2010 On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, I have heard Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The present petition has been filed by the informant, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition has been preferred against the order dated 5.7.2007 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.III, Kaimur at Bhabhua, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner ( informant) for amending the charge has been rejected by the trial court. I have perused the impugned order. While rejecting the petition, the learned trial Judge has recorded that at the time of recording Judgment , the learned court will examine as to whether it would be appropriate or not to amend charge. From the impugned order, it appears that the case was at the stage of argument and number of witnesses were examined. In the case, 2 occurrence had taken place in the year 2005. After going through the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has passed a just decision in the matter. It is made clear that if at the time of recording the Judgment, the learned trial Judge considers to amend the charge, he may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With above observation, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)