A. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) LD. advocate, Mr. A. M. Parekh appearing for the petitioner has stated at Bar that the petitioner does not press for the prayer made vide para 5 (c) claiming to quash and set aside the order dated 22. 9. 97 passed below bail application of the petitioner. Leave to amend as prayed is granted. ( 2 ) RULE. Ld. APP, Miss B. R. Gajjar waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned advocates for parties matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, Court No. 11 dated 22. 9. 97 produced vide page 20 of the paper book. ( 3 ) IT appears from the record that DCB Police Inspector, L. H. Desai has given a report to Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 11 vide Javak No. 3406/8 dated 22. 9. 97 declaring the fact that in the Crime register vide Cr. No. 0024/97 for the offences under secs. 406, 420, 465, 468 -and 144 against the petitioner on the complaint of one piyushbhai Tusharchandra Desai an additional charge under Sec. 467 IPC is added by the investigation Officer, and he has also informed to the court the fact that during investigation certain documents have been seized and taken into custody as muddamal and such documents were forged passports and fake visas. That the Ld. Metropolitan magistrate, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad has passed the order as under: "recorded and kept with FIR, dated 22. 9. 1997. " ( 4 ) MR. A. M. Parekh, Ld. advocate appearing for the petiioner has vehemently urged that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has grossly erred by passing the above stated order without giving any opportunity to the accused in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 216 Crpc (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). He has further submitted that by the said order, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has caused prejudicial effect to the liberty of the petitioner as subsequently thereafter bail application on completion of period ot anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been rejected by the Ld. Magistrate on account of addition of offences in the Crime register. He has further submitted that by the said order, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has caused prejudicial effect to the liberty of the petitioner as subsequently thereafter bail application on completion of period ot anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been rejected by the Ld. Magistrate on account of addition of offences in the Crime register. ( 5 ) ON appreciation of the facts and circumstances apparent from the record, the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner could hardly be accepted though made with utmost vehemence. It may be noted that after recording the FIR as given by the informant the original complainant Piyush Tusharchandra Desai as required under the provisions of law the DCB Police Inspector has forwarded the copy of the FIR to the court of competent jurisdiction, i. e. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 11 and had started investigation. During the investigation the Investigation Officer having come across some new facts and documents has thought it fit to add additional offence under sec. 467 and thereby has sent intimation to the court informing about the addition of said offence. Said procedure followed by the police authority can not be said to be illegal or irregular and the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate recording the said intimation and directing the court clerk to keep the same along with the FIR does not suffer with any infirmity or perversity. ( 6 ) IT appears that the petitioner has preferred the present application under some misconception. At the stage of investigation the court can not take cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused and thereby there is no question of granting any opportunity to the accused while adding any additional offence during the investigation. ( 7 ) ON the above stated discussion, the revision application fails and stands disposed of as rejected with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. .