1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2556/2009. (Mohd.Sajid s/o Mohd. Yakub Vs. State of Maharashtra) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.B.R.Warmaa, Advocate for applicant; Mr.PM Shinde, APP for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21 st August,2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant/accused – Mohd. Sajid s/o Mohd. Yakub (original accused no.10 in Sessions Case No. 172/2007, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 2. For the orders to be passed, detailed discussion of the facts is not warranted. 3. The learned Judge, vide Exhibit-120/C, framed Charge against the present applicant/accused for an offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. 4. An application under Section 216 of 2 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-208) was moved. However, the learned Judge, while declining to entertain the application, observed that it was an application for discharge and could not have been entertained. 5. Mr.Warma pointed that in similarly placed position, accused no.9 has submitted application on 24.7.2009 taking recourse to Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Judge by order dated 24.7.2009 allowed the application partly and the Charge framed against accused no.9 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, is altered and the accused no.9 has been treated to be involved for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC pursuant to the Charge framed against him below Exhibit120/C. 6. The learned Counsel has put up a grievance that he should have met with identical situation as the prayer in application at Exhibit-224 or 3 Exhibit-208 are identical in nature. 7. Since the learned Judge has not considered this aspect, it is left open to the learned Judge in the light of the very scheme of Section 216 of Cr.P.C., which empowers the learned Judge to alter, add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The learned Judge will take such precaution, as is legally warranted. 8. With these observations, Criminal Application is disposed of. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2556.09