This revision petition has arisen against the order dated 14.10.88 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sibhar in Complaint Case No.2302 of 1987 allowing the prosecution to recall witness/evidence for addition of section 420 IPC as charge, after completion of evidence. 2. The complainant opposite party took a loan of Rs.4,000/-from the accused persons in the month of Baishak, 1391 BS by signing on three revenue stamps affixed on a blank sheet of paper in presence of witnesses and handed over possession of a plot of paddy land measuring one kedar as interest. The complainant, as claimed, returned the full amount in the month of Falguna, 1393 BS in presence of witnesses but when the complainant asked the petitioner No. 1 to return the signed blank sheets of paper the petitioner No. 1 told that his son, petitioner No. 2 had gone to UP and the relevant papers would be returned only after his return from UP. That the accused petitioner No. 1 delivered possession of the paddy land to the complainant after the said sum of money. In the meantime petitioner No.1 asked the opposite party complainant to give him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on assurance of giving employment to the son of the complainant in Assam; Accordingly complainant opposite party gave him Rs.5,000/- in advance. But after the expiry of 5/6 months the assurance was not complied with nor the money was returned. While the son of the petitioner No.1 returned from UP the-complainant demanded return of the said sum of Rs.5,000/- and the revenue stamp fixed blank papers, the accused persons refused to do so and assaulted the complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that the witnesses saved his life and after the occurrence he filed the FIR in Sonai Police Station and the case was registered. Admittedly the petitioners were charged under section 323/34 IPC and the evidence was closed and the matter was ready for judgment. The complainant opposite party filed an application on 1.8.88 under section 260 CrPC praying for addition of charge under section 420 IPC, The defence (present petitioners) filed objection on 9.9.88 contending that it would be prejudicial to them as the matter was subjudiced in issue in a civil suit between the parties. The complainant opposite party filed an application on 1.8.88 under section 260 CrPC praying for addition of charge under section 420 IPC, The defence (present petitioners) filed objection on 9.9.88 contending that it would be prejudicial to them as the matter was subjudiced in issue in a civil suit between the parties. By the impugned order dated 14.10.88 the prayer for addition of charge was allowed e and further the complainant was allowed to lead further evidence and to adduce witness to substantiate the subsequent charge. Against this the present revision ' petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by the learned Court below without jurisdiction. That during the trial the complainant examined himself and other witnesses who were also cross examined by defence and the evidence led by the prosecution did not disclose any offence under section 420 IPC and the complaint itself did not disclose any offence under the said section. It is further alleged that while the impugned order was passed, the learned trial Court was not satisfied on any material on record and that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to represent his case against the impugned application and, therefore, he was prejudiced. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that at the time of framing charge no charge as such was framed being satisfied that there is ingredient under section 420 IPC and finding of prima facie case under section 323/34 IPC, charge was accordingly framed and trial proceeded. 4. On reading of the provision of the above section apparently where a Magistrate summoned an accused under a certain section of the Penal Code but the evidence disclosed an offence under another section the Magistrate can amend or add the charge. When facts are proved and constitute the offence, the trial Court can either alter the charge or add the new charge. For proper consideration, the complaint and the evidence on record have been perused. On perusal it was found that it disclosed a case under section 420 IPC. But from the evidence on record it is found that there, are ingredients to constitute an offence under section 420 IPC alongwith section 323/34 IPC. For proper consideration, the complaint and the evidence on record have been perused. On perusal it was found that it disclosed a case under section 420 IPC. But from the evidence on record it is found that there, are ingredients to constitute an offence under section 420 IPC alongwith section 323/34 IPC. The contention made in the complaint has disclosed the case under section 420 IPC and the Court's decision to frame charge under section 420 IPC after closure of the trial is. not without jurisdiction. In spite of presence of materials under section 420 IPC, Court did not frame charge but for this omission it cannot be said that this omission amounts to discharge of the accused persons under section 420 IPC and the Court by framing the charge subsequently amounts to review of its order. 5. Section 216 CrPC invests the Court with ample power to alter or amend a charge, whether discovered at trial stage or at any subsequent stage prior to judgment. In Kantilal Chandulal Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra & another (AIR 1970. SC 359) (relied on AIR 1943 PC 192) the Apex Court held that while the Court has ample power to amend or alter a charge Court should give full opportunity to the other party to make out his defence. In the present case, as it appears, the application was filed by the opposite party for addition of the charge under section 420 IPC. Objection was filed by the present petitioner and a full hearing was given by the trial Court and gave a detailed reasoned order. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to the prejudice of their interest. In AIR 1954 SC 266 (Harihar Chakravarty vs. The State of West Bengal) it was held that when an accused was not originally charged, that could only be done if the trial Court itself had taken action under section 227 CrPC before it pronounced judgment. Relying on this decision of the Apex Court the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1979 Crl LJ 258 (Enumula Subbarao & others vs. The State) decided a similar matter and I am respectfully in agreement with that decision. Relying on this decision of the Apex Court the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1979 Crl LJ 258 (Enumula Subbarao & others vs. The State) decided a similar matter and I am respectfully in agreement with that decision. From the above discussion, I am constrained to hold that the addition made under section 216 CrPC has been .done under the power of the Court for altering or amending a charge only when offence was disclosed by the evidence during trial. Even if there is an omission to frame a proper charge on commencement of the trial and the omission is discovered subsequently, on the evidence on record, suo motu or after receipt of application from the complainant, the Court can make a remedy by framing appropriate charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment. Another point Court has to consider is whether the alleged charge is added or amended at a later stage for which interest of the accused has been prejudiced and if it is so found his interest must be safeguarded by permitting him to cross examine prosecution witnesses and adduce his own evidence if the accused prefers so. It is also the duty of the trial Court to examine the accused under section 313 CrPC in respect to the amended or added charge and the accused must not be prejudiced. In this case after filing the application opportunity was given to the opposite party under the provisions of section 216 CrPC and accordingly the Court fixed 6.12.88 for evidence on the added charge under section 420 IPC. In that view of the matter the revision petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and put forward his defence. 6. In view of the above discussion I hold that the trial Court passed the order within his jurisdiction and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. Accordingly the revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within one month from receipt of this order as the matter is an old one. 7. Petition is disposed of. Office is directed to transmit the records immediately.