Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 R/W.401 of Crl.P.C. against the judgment in Crl.M.P.No.1521/06 in C.C.No.102/06 dated 11-12-2006 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada). This Criminal Revision Case is filed by A.2 in C.C.No.102 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against the order of the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.1521 of 2006, filed by the State requesting to frame additional charges for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. A crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 416, 468 and 471 IPC. The Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. But, the learned magistrate framed charges against the accused only for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC instead of framing charges for all the offences. 3. The allegation is that A.1, the Manager and A.2 to A.4, the employees of a firm, resorted to adopt corrupt practices to evade commercial and other taxes, hatched a plan and cheated the Government by using fake rubber stamps and impersonating the government official for evading payment of taxes, which are legitimately due to the Government and there by caused loss to the Government. They to forge waybills with binami names of the firms and cheated the Government for evading the taxes. 4. From the contents of the charge sheet and the material placed before the Court, prima facie it is established that the accused resorted to commit the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. As the Court did not frame the charges under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, the Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to frame charges under sections 419 and 420 IPC also. 5. The accused seriously opposed the application by contending that the Court, after considering the entire material, framed only charges u/s.468 and 471 IPC and unless there is some additional material to attract any penal provisions of law, no additional charges can be framed. Therefore, the trial Court erred in allowing the petition is liable to be dismissed by setting aside the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court erred in allowing the petition is liable to be dismissed by setting aside the order of the trial Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan and another (2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (SC)), wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and held that alteration of charge can be made at any time during the course of the trial and it is discretion of the Court to modify or alter the charge at an appropriate stage based on the material produced by way of evidence. 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, which is the respondent herein submitted that if there is any material to attract the provisions of penal code, the Court has to frame the charges to the extent material available on record and if any additional material is produced during the course of trial either documentary or by way of oral evidence, the Court has to examine whether the said material attracts any other penal provisions and accordingly frame the additional charge or alter the charge depending upon the circumstances. He further submitted that in the present case the charge sheet was filed for all the Sections including 419 and 420 IPC on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation, But, the learned Magistrate, without going through the entire material, framed charges only for the offences punishable under /sections 468 and 471 IPC. Therefore, the Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of the trial Court that there is prima facie material to frame charges under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. In pursuance of the said representation, the learned Magistrate framed the charges for the said offences also. 7. There is no dispute regarding the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. But, the facts and circumstances of he present case are different from the facts covered by the above decision. If there is no material available on record and if there is additional material furnished, then the alteration or modification of the charge under a particular offence arises. But in the present case, the material available on record is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 419 and 420 IPC. 8. If there is no material available on record and if there is additional material furnished, then the alteration or modification of the charge under a particular offence arises. But in the present case, the material available on record is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 419 and 420 IPC. 8. From the inception, there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused for the offences u/s. 419 and 420 IPC. But, for the reasons best known, the Magistrate did not notice the other material on record. When the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor drew the attention of the Court, the learned Magistrate realized the mistake and framed the charges in addition to the charges u/s. 468 and 471 IPC. 9. After going through the entire material, I am convinced that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The law does not preclude the learned Magistrate from framing the additional charges provided that an opportunity is given to the accused to rebut the charges. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.