JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shiv Charan, J.—The instant revision has been instituted against the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.) Prevention of Corruption Act, Ghaziabad in ST. No. 439 of 2007 (State v. Surendra Koli and others) under Sections 364, 302, 376/511, 201, I.P.C., P.S. S.C.B. 1st New Delhi. By the impugned order the learned Special Judge allowed the application of the complainant namely, Nand Lal moved under Section 216, Cr.P.C. For addition/alteration of the charges framed against revisionist Mohinder Singh Pandher for the offence under Sections 302, 376 and 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. 2. The facts of the case shows that a case was registered at Crime No. 838 of 2007, P.S. Sector 20 NOIDA for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376, 120-B, I.P.C. Later on the investigation of the case was entrusted to the C.B.I. The C.B.I. recorded the statement of the witnesses under Sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. D.N.A. and lie detector test were conducted of the applicant at the instance of the C.B.I. After completion of the investigation the C.B.I. submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused. But the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 302, 376 and 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. The charge-sheet was submitted against the co-accused Surendra Koli and the revisionist. The charge-sheet was submitted against Mohinder Singh Pandher for the offence under Sections 213, 214, 218 read with Section 120B and Sections 214, 201, 212, I.P.C. and 3/5 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. the charge was not framed against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C., because the charge-sheet was not submitted by the C.B.I. against the revisionist for these offences. Statement of complainant Nand Lal was recorded on 6.7.2007 and in this statement Nand Lal witness also stated about the involvement of revisionist in the offence under Sections 302, 376, 201 read with Section 120B, hence the complainant Nand Lal moved an application for addition and alteration of these offence also and by the impugned order the learned Special Judge allowed the application and framed the charges against the revisionist for these offences also. 3. 3. I have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate and also Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, advocate for the revisionist and Sri G.S. Hajela Senior Advocate for the C.B.I. and A.G.A. also and perused the entire material on record. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in allowing the application for addition/alteration of the charge. That the C.B.I. Prime Investigating Agency of the country did not submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 302, 364, 201, 376 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. when there was no evidence at all in the case diary, hence the learned Special Judge acted illegally in framing the charges of these offence also without evidence. That Payal deceased had relation with the revisionist from earlier to the incident. And after payment to her he was in the habit of having sexual intercourse with her. Utmost against the revisionist offence can be of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. But there can be no offence under Section 376, I.P.C. against the revisionist considering the facts and circumstance, learned Counsel for the revisionist also argued that the charge was altered/added on the basis of statement of examination-in-chief of complainant Nand Lal. That in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court the Sessions Judge was not justified in altering the charge without cross-examination of the witnesses. That no evidence was collected by C.B.I. of the murder of Payal. He also argued that the charge is to be framed only on the basis of the evidence available in the case diary and charge cannot be framed only on the basis of surmises and conjecture of the complainant. In the present case there was no evidence against the accused revisionist for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 376, I.P.C. hence it can be said that the learned trial Court framed the charge for these offence only on the basis of surmises and conjecture without any evidence. The learned Counsel for the revisionist further argued that if the statement of Nand Lal is to be accepted as gospel truth then also on the basis of this evidence it cannot be stated that he was involved in the commission of offence of murder and rape. The learned Counsel for the revisionist further argued that if the statement of Nand Lal is to be accepted as gospel truth then also on the basis of this evidence it cannot be stated that he was involved in the commission of offence of murder and rape. The statement of Nand Lal is only reliable to this extent that on the telephonic communication of co-accused Surender Koli, Payal deceased went at the house of the revisionist. But it cannot be inferred that he is a witness of the factum of murder and rape. He also argued that much has been alleged on behalf of the complainant that there was recovery out of the pointing out of the applicant of bones, skulls and weapons used in the commission of offence. But in this connection, the perusal of fard recovery is material and in view of the fard recovery it was Surendra Koli on whose pointing out bones, skulls and weapons of offence was recovered. On the basis of these recoveries also it cannot be said that the applicant is involved in the commission of murder and rape. That in the present case prior to passing the impugned order 5 witnesses were examined and no other witnesses except Nand Lal has stated about the involvement of revisionist in the offence of murder, kidnaping or rape and his statement also does not inspire any confidence. The C.B.I. collected no evidence against the applicant of murder and race. 4. Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has denied the argument of the Counsel for the revisionist and it has been argued that the learned Sessions Judge has got every right to amend/alter the charge at any stage of trial prior to the pronouncement of the judgment. In the present case, the learned Special Judge after perusing the entire material on record including the statement of Nand Lal arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence for the offence under Sections 302, 376, 364, 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. and the charges were framed for these offence also accordingly. 5. I have considered all facts and circumstances of the case, argument of the revisionist’s Counsel as well as Counsel for the C.B.I. It is material to decide whether the trial Court was justified in framing the charge for the offence for which the charge-sheet was not submitted by the C.B.I. investigating Agency. 5. I have considered all facts and circumstances of the case, argument of the revisionist’s Counsel as well as Counsel for the C.B.I. It is material to decide whether the trial Court was justified in framing the charge for the offence for which the charge-sheet was not submitted by the C.B.I. investigating Agency. Although the learned Senior Advocate of the revisionist has not disputed the competency of the trial Court in altering and adding of the charge at any stage of the case. But the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that there must be some substance on file for framing the charges for these offence. And in the present case there is no evidence at all to frame the charge for these offence. It will be material to mention in this case that this is very highlighted case known as Nithari Kand. And in the house of the revisionist D-5 Sector 31 NOIDA several innocent girl were raped and murdered. That the co-accused Surendra Koli used to allure the innocent adolescent girl and he took them inside the house of D-5 Sector 31 NOIDA and there Surendra Koli and revisionist assaulted them and committed sexual intercourse and then committed their murder. When the matter was highlighted then raid was conducted and bones and skulls as well as weapons used in the offence were recovered from this house D-5. 6. The application was moved under Section 216, Cr.P.C. for amending alteration and addition of the charge so as to frame charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 376, 364 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. It has been provided under Section 216 : “Court may alter charge.—(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) lf the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.” 7. Hence in view of these provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. the Court is fully competent for alteration and addition any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. In view of this section the charge can be altered and added even without recording the evidence in the Court. It has not been provided under Section 216, Cr.P.C. that such addition and alteration of the charge is permissible only after recording the evidence of the witness in the Court. In view of this Section the Court is justified in alteration/addition of charge even without recording the evidence of any witnesses. Although it has not been alleged that in the present case, certain precautions as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 216, Cr.P.C. has not been observed. And it has been provided in sub-section (4) of Cr.P.C. that if in the opinion of the trial Court by alteration and addition of charge, it is likely to cause the prejudice to the accused or prosecutor then the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. Nothing has been argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist regarding not providing any opportunity to the revisionist as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 216, Cr.P.C. But even then if the learned Counsel for the revisionist has got any apprehension that after alteration or addition of the charge the defence of the accused is likely to be prejudiced then he may approach the trial Court as provided in this sub-section. Moreover, in this provision it has also been provided that the Court may adjourn the trial for specific period so that the accused may get sufficient opportunity to defend him. Hence in my opinion there is no reason for drawing the inference that any prejudice is to be caused to the accused by addition of the charge. And if there is any possibility of any prejudice for defence then sufficient time had already been taken by the revisionist. Hence in my opinion there is no reason for drawing the inference that any prejudice is to be caused to the accused by addition of the charge. And if there is any possibility of any prejudice for defence then sufficient time had already been taken by the revisionist. Hence I am of the opinion that in view of Section 216, Cr.P.C. the trial Court has got every right of alteration/addition of a new charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 8. In the present case it is also material to be mentioned that the trial Court has not added a new charge solely on the basis of the evidence collected by the C.B.I. According to learned Counsel for the revisionist statement of as many as of five witnesses were recorded prior to framing/additioning the charges. Nand Lal, P.W. 5 is the complainant and after recording the statement of examination-in-chief, the application was moved for alteration/ addition of the charges and on the basis of statement of Nand Lal P.W. 5 charges were framed for the offence under Sections 302, 376, 364 and 201 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. 9. I have perused the statement of Nand Lal, P.W.5, he was not an eye-witness of the factum of kidnapping, murder or rape but he is a witness of certain circumstance suggesting the involvement of the revisionist in this offence. And the statement of Nand Lal shows that on the telephonic communication of Surendra Koli the deceased Payal went at the house of the accused D-5 Sector 31 NOIDA and when Payal did not return for a considerable period then he tried to contact the revisionist in Vain. This witness also stated that the recovery was also conducted at the pointing out of revisionist also. And in my opinion, this circumstance is sufficient to draw inference of the involvement of revisionist in this offence. At the time of framing of the charge the statement of witnesses is not to be scrutinized so meticulously which is required at the time of final disposal of the case. The trial Court when deciding the case will have to consider the statement of Nand Lal in order to draw the inference of the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At the time of framing of the charge the statement of witnesses is not to be scrutinized so meticulously which is required at the time of final disposal of the case. The trial Court when deciding the case will have to consider the statement of Nand Lal in order to draw the inference of the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But in my opinion, the circumstances as stated by this witness suggest the involvement of the applicant in this commission of offence of murder, rape and kidnapping of Payal. 10. The learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court held in (2007) 4 SCC 773 , Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy and another, J.T. 2007 (5) SC 562, Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Raiq and another and (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 568, Palanisamy Gounder and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, held that for the purpose of Section 319 in order to summon a person to face trial along with other accused persons the entire statement including the cross examination must be recorded. And that the statement only of examination-in-chief is not sufficient to summon the person to face the trial.” And he argued that analogy for the purpose of Sections 216 and 319, Cr.P.C. is identical. And as Hon’ble Apex Court held that for summoning a person to face trial alongwith the accused entire statement of the witnesses including the cross-examination must be recorded and that on the basis of same analogy for the purpose of Section 216, Cr.P.C. also the entire statement of the witnesses including the cross examination must be recorded. And in the present case the entire statement of witness Nand Lal including cross-examination was not recorded, hence the learned Special Judge committed gross illegality in passing the order of alteration of the charge. Although no direct ruling has been cited by the learned Counsel for the revisionist under Section 216, Cr.P.C. but the learned Counsel for the revisionist tried to persuade the Court to accept the analogy as stated by Hon’ble Apex Court for the purpose under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for the purpose under Section 216, Cr.P.C. also. But I disagree with this argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist. But I disagree with this argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist. Sections 216, Cr.P.C. and 319, Cr.P.C. are entirely different and in both the provisions the order is to be based on different analogy, it has not been provided under Section 216, Cr.P.C. that the Court may alter/add any charge only after recording the statement in the Court. Whereas, it has been provided under Section 319, Cr.P.C. that “Hence in view of this provision the Court is authorised to summon a person to face the trial if it appears to the Court from the evidence. Hence it is the satisfaction of the Court concerned to summon a person to face trial on the basis of the evidence. It can be the examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Whereas Section 216 Cr.P.C. is entirely different from this analogy. It is not necessary for addition of the charge that evidence of witness must be recorded. The Court may be satisfied for the purpose of addition of the charge on the basis of the evidence available in the case diary or also recording in the Court also including examination-in-chief. The Court at the time of framing the charge is not expected to be guided from the Sections mentioned in the charge-sheet by the I.O. There can be circumstance when in the case diary there is specific evidence to frame the charge of specific offence, but even then, the I.O. committed to mention the same offence. And if, it is shown that I.O. has omitted to mention certain offences then the Court is fully competent to add or alter the charge at any stage of trial. In the present case the C.B.I. omitted to mention an offence under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 376 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. and hence after recording the statement of Nand Lal on his application charge was added and in doing so the learned Sessions Judge was fully authorised in view of Section 216, Cr.P.C. I disagree with the argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in adding the charges mainly on the basis of the statement of witness of Nand Lal only of examination-in-chief. The above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court are of no help of the revisionist. The above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court are of no help of the revisionist. Because in the above cited ruling the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the position of Section 319, Cr.P.C. and not Section 216, Cr.P.C. In view of the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and different Courts the Court is fully empowered to alter the charges. But certain precaution are required for the Court to be observed as provided under sub-sections (2) and (3). And there is no objection to that. In view of several judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court, the charge can be altered or amended at any stage and there is no bar on that power of Court. 11. Learned Counsel for the revisionist also cited 2007 (1) JIC 449 : 2007(2) ADJ 2 (NOC), Jittu Singh @ Jitendra Bahadur Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, it has been held by Hon’ble single Judge “He submitted that under these circumstances when informant Deepa Singh on being examined as P.W.1 had added the above new allegation in her examination-in-chief, the proper procedure for the Additional Sessions Judge was to permit the accused first to cross-examine her and then suitable orders should have been passed after proper appraisal of evidence. I agree with this contention.” But in view of Section 216, Cr.P.C. it has not been provided that the order for alteration/addition of the charge can only be done after recording the entire statement of witness. The word evidence has not been mentioned under Section 216, Cr.P.C. whereas in Section 319, Cr.P.C. the word evidence has been mentioned for Section 319, Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly held in the above judgements. In my opinion the judgment of this Court is not to be considered as the settled law for the purpose of passing the order under Section 216, Cr.P.C. 12. Hence on the basis of above discussion and reasons. I am of the confirmed opinion that the trial Court has got ample power to alter/add the charge under Section 216, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the trial prior to pronouncement of the judgment. Hence on the basis of above discussion and reasons. I am of the confirmed opinion that the trial Court has got ample power to alter/add the charge under Section 216, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the trial prior to pronouncement of the judgment. The Court can also alter/add the charge even after perusing the evidence collected by the I.O. and in the present case the Court was fully competent to add new charge under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376, I.P.C. I disagree with the argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist that in the circumstances of the case, no offence can be said made out against the revisionist for the offences. There is no allegation that the revisionist committed rape on Payal forcibly against her consent. He also argued that the revisionist had contact with Payal from earlier and on payment of money the revisionist was having intercourse with her and in the circumstance there can be the offence of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and not under Section 376, I.P.C. But it is to be decided by the trial Court and not by this Court at this stage. In my opinion, the order of the trial Court is perfectly justified and according to law. It is only the dilatory tactic adopted by the revisionist to delay such a high lighted matter in which numerous murder of innocent girls after rape were committed, such cases must be decided expeditiously and in the present case it appears that every efforts is being made by the revisionist to delay the disposal of the case. There is no substance in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. The revisions, are dismissed at this stage accordingly. ————