( 1 ) RULE. Learned APP Mr. K. P. Raval waives service of rule on behalf of State. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.

( 2 ) THE present petitioners are the accused in Criminal Case No. 275 of 1993 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Babara, District Amreli. On a complaint made by complainant - Rajuben Bhayabhai to the Babara Police Station on 17th July, 1993 against the present petitioner, the investigation started by the Babara Police and the offences was initially registered under Sections 395, 397, 323, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a charge sheet to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Babara, was submitted by the Police for the offences against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Agency informed the learned Magistrate that no offence under Sections 395 or 397 appears to have been committed in the matter in view of the evidence found during the investigation.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the charge was framed against the accused under Secs. 147, 148, 149 and 114 of IPC for which the charge sheet was submitted by the Babara Police Station. The evidence commenced and complainant Rajuben Bhayabhai was examined by the prosecution as witness before the court. She stated in the chief-examination the ingredients of Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, an application from the prosecution came to be filed on 11/07/1995 vide Exh. 25 praying to frame charge under Secs. 395 and 397. It was urged that the charge against the accused under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be added in view of what is stated by the complainant in her deposition in the examination-of-chief. It appears that from that stage i. e. submitting application at Exh. 25 by APP, the deposition of the complainant has not proceeded further. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Babara, heard A. P. P. and accused and came to the conclusion that having regard to the police papers and investigation, merely on a statement of the complainant in the examination-in-chief, he felt that the charge, as urged by the prosecution under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code was not required to be added or altered and hence the application filed by the prosecution at Exh. 25 was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied, the State filed the Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1996 against the above said order of learned JMFC dated 9/04/1996 below Application Exh. 25, in the court of Sessions Judge at Amreli.

( 5 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties, allowed the Revision and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, below Exh. 25 rejecting the said application and further learned Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to add the charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed in his judgment that the court has ample power to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, learned Sessions Judge has quoted the ingredients of Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code in his judgment. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that in the deposition i. e. in examination-in-chief, the complainant Rajuben Bhayabhai deposed the above mentioned ingredients of Sections 395 and 397 of the I. P. C. which constitute an offence. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge allowed the application at Exh. 25 and set aside the order of learned Magistrate, Babara.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the above said order of the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, dated 14/10/1999, in Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1996, this Revision Application is filed by the original accused.

( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. P. J. Kanabar on behalf of the petitione