1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 375 of 2011 Devendra v. The State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr U.A. Gosavi, Advocate for petitioner Mr A. Parihar, APP for respondent Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 22nd July 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 2. The petition questions order dated 24.2.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur below exhibit 27 in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2007 whereby the application filed by the prosecution for alteration of charge was allowed and the charge framed at exhibit 10 was altered from Section 376B to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Grievance of the petitioner is that when earlier the charge was framed on 21.11.2007 for the offence punishable under Section 376B, the Court had observed that acts of the accused in respect of alleged illegal intercourse were not amounting to offence of rape assuming that the petitioner is a public servant 3. Learned trial Court observed that the entire charge- sheet makes allegation of rape by the accused, attracting charge 2 under Section 376 of the Penal Code. Learned trial Court has further observed that it is always open for it to frame the correct charge and mould it accordingly to law if wrongly framed. 4. In my opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the trial Court is allowed to frame correct charge. Learned trial Court has acted within the parameters of law and no interference is called for in the impugned order. Petition stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE joshi