ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to set aside the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution filed a petition, vide Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013, before the trial Court under Section 216 (1) Cr.P.C to amend/alter the charges against the petitioners under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is stated that the case is coming up for examination of the petitioners and the prosecution has found that at the time of framing of charges, due to typographical error Section 27 of WALTA Act was typed instead of Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Further, Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was mentioned in the charge sheet was missing in the charges framed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed under Section 147,148, 307, 326, 120-B read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act after conducting the investigation and collecting the evidence. Therefore, there is sufficient material evidence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 120-B of the IPC.

3. After hearing on both sides, the trial allowed the said petition and consequently, directed that the charge for the offence under Section 27 of WALTA Act shall be altered as charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the charge under Section 120-B of IPC shall be added against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri H. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed counter in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2024 in S.C.No.176 of 2013, in which it is stated that P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and after conclusion of trial, the said case was posted for 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the petitioners. From the date of framing of charges, i.e., from 19.04.2016 and even during the course of entire trial, the prosecution remained silent and filed the said petition at a belated stage with an oblique motive of filling up the lacunas in the case. It is further stated that absolutely there is no evidence in the petition disclosing the acts of conspiracy among the petitioners and without bringing any substantive evidence, no party can be allowed to file a petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C to modify the charges. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the entire trial was concluded and the case was posted for 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the petitioners. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. Karimullah Osan Khan1, wherein it is observed that the Court can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C., only when there exists some material before

1 2014 136 AIC 238

the Court which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi2, wherein it is observed that the trial Court has to take into consideration the broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence during the course of entire trial and documents produced and when satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, then only the Court is free to do so and further the Court should not have acted in mechanically without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court dated 02.04.2024 passed in Cr.M.P