Judgment :- Common Order: The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with these revision petitions challenging the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge cum Special Judge under the SC & ST(PA) Act 1989 Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C to add certain charges against the petitioners more particularly for the charge under Section 376 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the witnesses who have implicated the petitioners for the offence under Section 376 IPC have not identified these petitioners at the time of identification parade and therefore there is no question of adding the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 376 IPC. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of evidence of witnesses PW41 to PW50, PW52, PW54 and PW55, they are not identified these petitioners in the identification parade in respect of charge under Section 376 IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge cum Special Judge under the SC & ST(PA) Act 1989 Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri allowing the petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that PW41 to PW50, PW52, PW54 and PW55 have categorically implicated these petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding non identification of the petitioners by the above said witnesses during identification parade is the point available to the petitioners only during the course of trial and not at this stage. The learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that the power conferred to the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C is wider and as such, the power can be exercised at any time even before the delivery of judgment. The learned special Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution witnesses have already been examined including the Investigation Officer. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions put forward by the counsel on either side and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge cum Special Judge. The learned special Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution witnesses have already been examined including the Investigation Officer. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions put forward by the counsel on either side and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge cum Special Judge. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that PW41 to PW50, PW52, PW54 and PW55 have implicated the petitioners herein for the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC. The only grievance of the petitioners as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the above said witnesses have not identified these petitioners during the identification parade. This Court is of the considered view that it is open to the petitioners to agitate this point at the time of trial, as this point relates to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses in this case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor the power conferred to Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C is also wider. Section 216 (1) of Cr.P.C. reads under; "Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced." A reading of the above said section make it crystal clear that any Court can exercise the power at any stage and even before the pronouncement of the judgment. 5. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in HASANBHAI VALIBHAI QURESHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2004 (SC)2078 as follows; "There is a scope of alteration of the charge during trial on the basis of materials brought on record. Section 216 of the Code appearing in Chapter XVII clearly stipulates that any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Whenever such alteration or addition is made the same is to be read out and informed to the accused. Therefore, if during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate." 6. It is also pertinent to note that this case relates to very sensitive matter namely Vachathi case and it is pending right from the year 1996. It is also pathetic to note that the accused persons are taking one plea or other and thereafter protracting the proceedings unnecessarily. It is also further pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that even the Second Division Bench of this Court directed the prosecution to expedite the trial on the basis of the petition filed under Public Interest Litigation. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting the interference of this Court. It is made clear that the petitioners should be given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses within a reasonable time if in the event of the petitioners filing the petition for recalling the witnesses. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court directs the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the SC & ST (PA) Act 1989, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, these revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.