: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office : Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions : & Registrar’s orders : --------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.S.Pednekar,A.P.P. for the Applicant-State. Shri A.S.Rao for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: S.R.Dongaonkar, J. CORAM: S.R.Dongaonkar, J. CORAM: S.R.Dongaonkar, J. DATE : 7th March, 2006. DATE : 7th March, 2006. DATE : 7th March, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the Applicant-State and Shri A.S.Rao for the Respondent No.1. 2. This Revision Application of the State seeks direction to set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai dated 9th January, 2003 by which the Magistrate rejected the application of the State for amending charge. 3. The Accused is prosecuted for : 2 : the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code read with 134 (a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State had applied for amendment of charge with an intention that the Court should frame the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On hearing the A.P.P. for the State, it is not possible to hold on the basis of record available that the accused had an intention to kill the prosecution witness. 5. Even otherwise, the charge can be amended at the later stage of the trial if evidence so discloses. 6. Parties are unable to point out as to what stage trial is pending. Matter is pending since long. I do not find sufficient reason to keep the matter pending as it does not seem to have any merit. : 3 : 7. Application stands rejected. (S.R.Dongaonkar, J.) (S.R.Dongaonkar, J.) (S.R.Dongaonkar, J.)