IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38362 of 2009 1. PARMESHWAR SINGH 2. Bijay Singh Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party no. 2:- Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. ------------- 5. 8.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Opposite Party No. 2. It is not in controversy that the two petitioners originally are also accused facing trial under lesser Sections of the Penal Code while co-accused was facing charge under Section 307 of the Penal Code also. By the impugned order dated 11.9.2009, by alteration of the charge, the petitioners have also been called upon to face the charge additionally under Section 307 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly urged that charges were framed as far back as 1994 against them under Sections 323 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution concluded its evidence in 1996 and the defence in 2008. The opposite party filed an application for alteration of charge only in 2009. The matter was fixed for judgment, when the Court has altered the charge. Having considered the facts and 2 circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to interfere. Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. specifically provides that charges can be altered at any stage prior to the judgment. The decision for altercation of a charge is taken by the Court on the basis of materials available on record or transpiring during trial. The order impugned is not without jurisdiction. The petitioners shall not be prejudiced in any manner as they shall also have an opportunity to lead evidence and cross examine. The trial being old let it be expedited. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)