Judgment : 1. The revision petitioners, who are six in number are accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai. On 4.2.1986, four charges were framed against them under Sec. 147, 352, 323 and 455 of the Indian Indian Penal Code.The first charge is under Sec. 147 against accused 1 to 6. The second charge isunder Sec.352, I.P.C. against accused 2, 4, 5 and 6. The third charge is underSec.323, I.P.C. against the 3rd accused. The fourth charge is against the 2ndaccused under Sec.455, I.P.C. 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 who are husband and wife were examined on 2.7.1986. P.W.3 is Mahazar witness and P.W.4 speaks about the motive part of the occurrence. They were examined on 31.7.1986. On 21.11.1986, P.W.5, who treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P-5 was examined. On the same day P.W.6 the Head Constable, who has registered the case was also examined. On 17.12.1986, the investigating officer was examined. With this, the prosecution closed their evidence. 3. On 22.12.1986, statements from the accused under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. On 28.1.1987, arguments were heard and case was posted for judgment on 30th January, 1987. On that day, the trial court framed six charges covering the earlier four charges and adding two more charges. Fresh charges are charges 3 and 5. The third charge is against the 1st accused for an offence punishable under Sec.452, I.P.C. The fifth charge isagainst the 2nd accused for an offence under Sec.426, I.P.C. It is against the order dated 30.1.1987, under which six charges have been framed, the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the charges have been framed without any basis and the trial court, instead of delivery of judgment on the materials available on record then, ought not to have framed new charges. 5. Aperusal of the oral evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution clearly shows that there is no basis for framing the new charges as has been done by the trial Magistrate. Further, the power given to any court for altering to or adding of any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced should be used sparingly only in grave cases, and not in cases where medical evidence reveals only bruises, which are minor in character. 6. Further, the power given to any court for altering to or adding of any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced should be used sparingly only in grave cases, and not in cases where medical evidence reveals only bruises, which are minor in character. 6. The trial Magistrate on the basis of the new charges has issued summons to the entire prosecution witnesses, which amounts to a fresh trial. That is not the intention of Sec.216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, I find that the framing of the new charges are without any basis and they are liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly this revision is allowed, and the matter is remitted back to the trial Magistrate. The trial Magistrate viz., the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai is directed to pronounce Judgment on the materials available on the charges originally framed on 4.2.1986 in accordance with law.