The petitioner/accused No.1 in S.C.No.227 of 2018 has

knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in

question order dated 31-12-2021 by which the II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Kolar has added a charge under

Section 7 of the POCSO Act (‘the Act’ for short) apart from the

allegations which were initially levelled and punishable under

Sections 366A, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

3

2. Heard Sri T.A.Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

3. The facts, necessary for consideration of the subject lis,

are as follows:

A complaint came to be registered on 01-12-2016 on an

allegation that when the victim was going to the school at

Masthi, the petitioner is said to have asked her to sit on the bike

to drop her at the school. The victim sits on the bike and they

reached Masthi Dinne where accused 2 and 3 along with

accused

No.1

kidnapped

and

taken

the

victim

to

Halasumaranadoddi. The purpose of such kidnap was to get her

married to accused No.4. The complaint further narrates that

she escaped from the clutches of the accused and contacted the

complainant and her relatives. Thereafter, a complaint came to

be registered against all the accused including the petitioner for

offences punishable under Sections 366A, 506 and 34 of the

4

IPC. The crime came to be registered on 06-12-2016 for an

incident that had happened on 01-12-2016.

4. The issue in the case at hand is not with regard to

merits of the matter. What drives the petitioner to this Court at

this juncture is an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge

altering the charge invoking his power under Section 216 of the

Cr.P.C. on an application being made by the prosecution seeking

alteration of the charge and inclusion of offence punishable

under the Act. The application was filed by the prosecution on

25.01.2021 on account of certain statements recorded during

the trial before the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner and

others filed their objections for alteration of the charge. The

learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 31-12-2021 allows

the application permitting amendment of the charge for

inclusion of Section 7 of the Act.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the very order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge is contrary to law as the charge is altered after three years

5

of commencement of trial which could not have been done and

for such alteration of charge there was no evidence but merely

on the statement of the victim which does not touch upon the

offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, the charge that is

added casts grave prejudice to the petitioner. He would submit

that the victim was taken only to get her married to accused

No.4 and nobody has indulged in any act that would become

offence punishable under the Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would seek to justify the order and submits that the

charge can be altered by the learned Sessions Judge at any time

and alteration of charge now made does indicate the offence

punishable under the Act. He seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions of the respective learned counsel and perused the

material on record. In furtherance whereof, the issues that fall

for my consideration are:

6

(i)

Whether the charge can be altered under Section

216 of the Cr.P.C. after commencement of trial

and recording of evidence of several witnesses?

and

(ii) Whether the order directing alteration of the

charge warrants interference?

Issue No.1:

(i)

Whether the charge can be altered under Section

216 of the Cr.P.C. after commencement of trial and

recording of evidence of several witnesses?

8. To consider the issue whether the Court would be well

within its jurisdiction to alter the charge at any stage of the

proceedings, it is germane to notice source of power for such

alteration. Section 2