1 Cri. Rev. No. 994/2011 15.12.2011. Shri Pratap Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.. Shri L.L. Sharma, learned G.A. for the State. They are heard. O R D E R By this revision petition filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod District Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 95/2010 allowing the applicant of the respondent and framed additional charges under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that there has been an addition in the charges on the basis of an application filed by the respondent. He urged that the petitioner had not been given any opportunity to lead evidence and prayed for setting aside the impugned order framing additional charges. He stated that once the cognizance has been taken under section 190 Cr.P.C. the Court has no power to intervene and frame additional charges without allowing adequate opportunity to the applicant to adduce evidence. 2 Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions made by the applicant and submitted that the Court was entitled to add,alter and/or reduce the charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Moreover, the counsel stated that in the instant case, order has been passed bi-parte and the counsel for the accused-applicant was present before the Court and was heard in the matter. Counsel for the State prayed that the revision was without merit and the same be dismissed. On consideration of the rival submissions, I find that under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court can add, alter and reduce the charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. with the only pre condition that the alteration and addition may be read over and explained to the accused. In the instant case, I find that the application has been discussed and adequate opportunity has also been granted to the applicant. Moreover, there was documentary evidence available on record which indicated that there has been tampering in the copies of the receipts and, therefore, the Court has added the charges under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides this, at the time of framing the charges 3 when the Court had found that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant the accused does not have any right to be heard in defence. It would also be profitable to rely on State of M.P. V/s Johari and others 2000(2) MPLJ 322, whereby the Court held that:- “It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.” Similarly I find that adequate opportunity has been given to the applicant there is documentary proof available on record. Besides the revision is also not maintainable under section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. as it is filed against an interlocutory order. Consequently this revision petition filed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. (Mrs.S.R Waghmare) 4 J U D G E Dube/]