IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1136 of 2011 Dhanji Singh @ Bachajee, son of Ram Pravesh Singh, alias Burha Singh, resident of village: Narang, Police Station, Nokha Baghaila, District- Rohtas, at present resident of village; Shahpur, P.S. Sasaram Mufassil, District Rohtas at Sasaram. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 28.09.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 23rd August 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 454 of 2010 by which the two applications dated 19.8.2010 filed on behalf of the State for amending the charges and for producing the firearms as material exhibits, have been allowed. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case was fixed for judgment and on the date of judgment a petition was filed by the prosecution for amendment of the charge and the another petition has been filed for adducing the material exhibits as evidence, should not have been allowed by the learned trial court to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the State submits 2 that the charge can be amended at any time before pronouncement of the judgment and accordingly if necessary evidence has to be adduced .There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, no interference in the impugned order is required by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that after seeing the charge-sheet and the evidence on record there was necessity to amend the charge and secondly the material exhibits essential for just decision of the case, have not been placed on the record as evidence, as such, the prosecution has filed the petition on both the counts. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has held that the amendment of charge is necessary and the material exhibit, the basis of this case which has been recovered from the possession of the accused must be produced. It is well settled principle of law that the charge can be amended at any point of time before pronouncement of judgment and thereafter, both the parties are given opportunity for leading their evidence. The 3 accused will also be entitled to get the opportunity to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and also to lead their evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)