IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1471 of 2009 1. Ballam Das @ Ballam Yadav @ Ballam Prasad son of Pabittar Das. 2. Jageshwar Das @ Jaleshwar Das son of Anmol Das both are resident of village Nonia Bigha, Tola Keshopur, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda. … Petitioners. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Shiv Jamadar son of Latar Jamadar, resident of Nonia Bigha, Tola Keshopur, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda. … Opposite Parties. ----- For the petitioners :Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. For the State :Mr. Z. Hoda, APP ----- 4. 08.11.2011 The accused- petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Biharsharif at Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1984 by which the prayer for amendment of charge under Sections 395 and 397 IPC has been allowed. The main grievance of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the charges were framed against the petitioners and others on 20.12.1986 and the witnesses have also been examined and the prayer has been made for amendment of charge by the prosecution after much delay to cause delay in the trial of the petitioners. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that the prosecution has filed a petition dated 23.9.2008 for the amendment of charge against the accused-petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. Rejoinder dated 18.10.2008 has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court has found that there is sufficient material on record for framing of charge against the petitioners under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C.. Charge can be amended at any stage of trial. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct, it appears that the learned trial court has found that there is sufficient material for framing of charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) 3