ORDER 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19.2.2002 passed by 5th Add\. Sessions Judge, Arrah in S.Tr. No. 354/98 by which he has allowed the prayer of the prosecution to add charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the accused petitioner Sabir Mian. 2. Heard. 3. It appears that both the petitioners are accused in S.Tr. No. 354/98 pending in the court of 5th Addl. Sessions Judge and the allegation against the petitioner Sabir Mian is that he fired causing fire arm injury on the back bone of the injured Satya Narain Singh. It also appears that during the course of trial, the injured died and hence a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution for adding section 302 I.P.C. against the petitioner Sabir Mian. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard both the sides and found from the materials available on record including the evidence of the injured (deceased), who had become invalid on account of injury, that after the occurrence the deceased under went treatment at several places including P.M.C.H., Patna, AIIMS, New Delhi and while undergoing treatment he died on 25.9.2000. He also found from the postmortem report that the deceased died on account of chronic ailment. He accordingly by the impugned order allowed the prayer of the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence as alleged had taken place on 8.8.1997 and the deceased died after three years on 25.9.2000 and the postmortem report would show that the cause of death was chronic disease. Therefore, there was no nexus between the death and the alleged assault on the deceased. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in adding the charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the petitioners. 5. I. think in this connection the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Salman Salim Khan & anor., (2004) 1 S.C.C. 525 , may be referred to. The Apex Court in that case has held that though it is opin to the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charges framed by the trial court but the same cannot be done by writing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. Salman Salim Khan & anor., (2004) 1 S.C.C. 525 , may be referred to. The Apex Court in that case has held that though it is opin to the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charges framed by the trial court but the same cannot be done by writing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. The principle to be adopted by the High Court in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed; would it constitute an offence or not. It is only at the stage of trial that the truthfulness, sufficiency or acceptability of I evidence can be judged. In view of that I decision it would not be proper for this• Court to interfere with the impugned order. The sufficiency of evidence in this regard would be judged, at the time of judgment. The application is thus dismissed.