JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard Mr. Anil Khutatia for the petitioners at length as well as learned P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners have come up by way of the instant revision petition, challenging the order dated 31st March, 1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 9/99 whereby the charge has been framed against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 392, 394, 397 and 120-B, IPC. During the course of hearing, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is no prima facie evidence to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged crime hence, the Trial Court should not have framed charges against them for the aforesaid offences. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court should be satisfied whether on the basis of the material available on the record, prima facie view can be expressed with regard to commission of that offence for which the accused has been charged. In this case, looking to the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the offence was committed i.e. occupier of the Manuti car was looted and currency notes amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/- were taken away on the point of knife and thereafter the accused escaped to West Bengal, the accused petitioners do not deserve suspension of sentence. 3. The First Information Report was registered with the Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur on 14th December, 1998. The accused were arrested from Jaipur as well as from West Bengal on different dates. The test identification parade was also held on 18th January, 1999 in which the accused persons were identified by the witnesses. The case property i.e. Rs. 45,00,000/- was to be deposited with the Oriental Bank, Jaipur by the complainant and the said amount has been recovered from the accused. All the four accused persons were arrested and presently they are in judicial custody in Central Jail, Jaipur. Charge has already been framed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397 and 120-B, IPC and the trial is in progress. 4. All the four accused persons were arrested and presently they are in judicial custody in Central Jail, Jaipur. Charge has already been framed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397 and 120-B, IPC and the trial is in progress. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that charge is not sustainable since the police initially registered the case for the offences under Sections 392, 323 and 34, IPC while did not find the case suitable for registration against the accused under Section 397, IPC. This contention is wholly devoid of merit since it is always open to the prosecution to get even additional charge framed provided there is sufficient material on the record which though not available initially at the time of the arrest of the accused, is subsequently made available and brought to the notice of the Court at any stage before pronouncement of judgment. Framing of charge is necessary for such offences, the Court has ample powers as per section 311, Cr.P.C. to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential for just decision of the case. The Trial Court has to examine as to whether on the basis of evidence available on record, whether the prosecution story appears to be probable to proceed further with the trial. There is no bar to the Trial Court to frame charge against accused for commission of such offences on the basis of additional evidence made available on the record. This fact is also borne out from the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Makahan Singh Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (2) WLC 72 . The another judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is Jang Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 (3) RLR 19 .I have examined the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court and I am of the considered view that neither of them is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The another judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is Jang Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 (3) RLR 19 .I have examined the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court and I am of the considered view that neither of them is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Prima facie I am of the view that the charge has been framed by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on record and it is not necessary for the Trial Court to scrutinise the evidence and to consider whether the evidence is tangible or not at the stage of framing of charge.As result of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of merit, is, dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******