Hon’ble Shiv Charan, J.—The instant revision has been instituted against the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.) Prevention of Corruption Act, Ghaziabad in ST. No. 439 of 2007 (State v. Surendra Koli and others) under Sections 364, 302, 376/511, 201, I.P.C., P.S. S.C.B. 1st New Delhi. By the impugned order the learned Special Judge allowed the application of the complainant namely, Nand Lal moved under Section 216, Cr.P.C. For addition/alteration of the charges framed against revisionist Mohinder Singh Pandher for the offence under Sections 302, 376 and 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C.

2. The facts of the case shows that a case was registered at Crime No. 838 of 2007, P.S. Sector 20 NOIDA for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376, 120-B, I.P.C. Later on the investigation of the case was entrusted to the C.B.I. The C.B.I. recorded the statement of the witnesses under Sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. D.N.A. and lie detector test were conducted of the applicant at the instance of the C.B.I. After completion of the investigation the C.B.I. submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused. But the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 302, 376 and 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. The charge-sheet was submitted against the co-accused Surendra Koli and the revisionist. The charge-sheet was submitted against Mohinder Singh Pandher for the offence under Sections 213, 214, 218 read with Section 120B and Sections 214, 201, 212, I.P.C. and 3/5 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. the charge was not framed against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C., because the charge-sheet was not submitted by the C.B.I. against the revisionist for these offences. Statement of complainant Nand Lal was recorded on 6.7.2007 and in this statement Nand Lal witness also stated about the involvement of revisionist in the offence under Sections 302, 376, 201 read with Section 120B, hence the complainant Nand Lal moved an application for addition and alteration of these offence also and by the impugned order the learned Special Judge allowed the application and framed the charges against the revisionist for these offences also.

3. I have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate and also Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, advocate for the revisionist and Sri G.S. Hajela Senior Advocate for the C.B.I. and A.G.A. also and perused the entire material on record. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in allowing the application for addition/alteration of the charge. That the C.B.I. Prime Investigating Agency of the country did not submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 302, 364, 201, 376 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. when there was no evidence at all in the case diary, hence the learned Special Judge acted illegally in framing the charges of these offence also without evidence. That Payal deceased had relation with the revisionist from earlier to the incident. And after payment to her he was in the habit of having sexual intercourse with her. Utmost against the revisionist offence can be of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. But there can be no offence under Section 376, I.P.C. against the revisionist considering the facts and circumstance, learned Counsel for the revisionist also argued that the charge was altered/added on the basis of statement of examination-in-chief of complainant Nand Lal. That in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court the Sessions Judge was not justified in altering the charge without cross-examination of the witnesses. That no evidence was collected by C.B.I. of the murder of Payal. He also argued that the charge is to be framed only on the basis of the evidence available in the