ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioners herein original accused for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2007 / 4.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad below application Exh-135 in Sessions Case No.252 of 1998, by which, the learned Trial Court has granted the application submitted by the prosecution for amending charge by correcting date of offence as 13/03/1998 instead of 12/03/1998. 2. All the petitioners original accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 332, 186, 294(b), 506(2) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to FIR complaint being C.R.No.I-135 of 1998 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station for the offences alleged to have been committed on 13.03.1998. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad committed the case to the District & Sessions Court, Nadiad on 28th September,1998, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.252 of 1998. The learned Sessions Court framed the charge against the present petitioners vide Exh-6 on 26th December,2002. That thereafter the trial commenced and the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. That during the trial, it came to the knowledge of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the trial that at the relevant time of framing the charge, by mistake and through oversight, the date of offence was mentioned as 12/03/1998 instead of 13/03/1998 and therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application Exh-135 before the learned Sessions Court for amending the charge and the date of offence / incident mentioned in the charge i.e. 12/03/1998 may be amended as 13/03/1998. The said application was opposed by the petitioners original accused and thereafter by impugned order dated 28/09/2007, learned Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad allowed the said application and ordered to amend the charge by correcting the date of incident as 13/03/1998 instead of 12/03/1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court, in order to amend the charge by correcting the date of offence/incident as 13/03/1998 in place of 12/03/1998, the present petitioners have preferred the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court, in order to amend the charge by correcting the date of offence/incident as 13/03/1998 in place of 12/03/1998, the present petitioners have preferred the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners original accused has vehemently submitted that learned Trial Court ought not to have ordered to amend the charge by correcting the date of offence at the fag end of the trial and at a belated stage, more particularly when the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and accused led the evidence and cross-examined the witnesses considering the date of incident as 12/03/1998 as per the charge framed. It is submitted that the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses on considering the date of incident as 13/03/1998 has been taken away. It is submitted that even learned Additional Public Prosecutor at the relevant time when the charge was framed at Exh-6 did not take any proper care and trial came to be proceeded further considering the date of incident / offence as 12/03/1998 as mentioned in the charge framed by learned Trial Court and, therefore, such an application ought not to have been allowed by the Trial Court at the fag end of the trial. It is further submitted that after the petitioners disclosed their defences and now with a view to rectify mistake, the learned Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application submitted by the prosecution for amending the date mentioned in the charge framed against the petitioners. It is submitted that it is nothing but after thought on the part of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with a clear intention that the petitioners can be convicted. By making above submission, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order. 4. The petition is opposed by Ms.Trusha Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. It is submitted that admittedly right from the beginning and even in the charge-sheet, the date of incident is mentioned as 13/03/1998. Therefore, there was obvious mistake on the part of the learned Sessions Court in mentioning the date as 12/03/1998 as date of offence / incident while framing the charge at Exh-6. It is submitted that admittedly right from the beginning and even in the charge-sheet, the date of incident is mentioned as 13/03/1998. Therefore, there was obvious mistake on the part of the learned Sessions Court in mentioning the date as 12/03/1998 as date of offence / incident while framing the charge at Exh-6. It is submitted that having realised that it was a mistake on the part of the learned Trial Court by mentioning the date of incident as 12/03/1998, immediately an application was submitted to amend the charge accordingly and when the said application is granted, it cannot be said that the impugned order is in any way illegal. It is submitted that by mistake of the court, nobody can be made to suffer and more particularly, when the petitioners are faced with the offences punishable under Sections 395, 332, 186, 294(b), 506(2) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the endeavour of the Court is to give substantial justice and to find out the truth. It is submitted that if charge is not amended by mentioning correct date of incident/ offence, the benefit shall go to the petitioners original accused and they will be acquitted. It is submitted that on the other hand, if the charge is amended by correcting the mistake, in that case, the petitioners may be permitted to recall the witnesses, who are already examined and cross-examined and the petitioners original accused may cross-examine the witnesses, considering the date of incident as 13/03/1998 (which is the correct date of incident/ offence) and thereby no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners- original accused. It is submitted that on the other hand if the application Exh-135 is not allowed and the charge is not amended by correcting date of incident, prosecution case will be prejudiced. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present application. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears and it is not disputed by Mr.Pancholi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that right from the beginning of the complaint, the date of offence is mentioned as 13/03/1998. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present application. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears and it is not disputed by Mr.Pancholi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that right from the beginning of the complaint, the date of offence is mentioned as 13/03/1998. It is submitted that while framing the charge at Exh-6, by mistake in the charge the date of incident is mentioned as 12/03/1998 and, therefore, it appears that there is an obvious mistake made by learned Judge while framing the charge at Exh-6. It is also true that learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not drawn the attention of the Court but for such a mistake the benefit cannot go to the petitioners original accused. It is a cardinal principle of law that nobody can be made to suffer because of the mistake on the part of the Court, more particularly, in the criminal case, the benefit of such a mistake can never be given to the accused persons. Therefore, when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor having realised the mistake submitted application Exh-135 and requested the Trial Court to amend the charge by mentioning the correct date as 13/03/1998, which was the case on behalf of the prosecution from the very beginning and when the said mistake is corrected, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. If application Exh-135 submitted by the prosecution for amending the charge is not allowed or not granted, in that case, the prosecution case will be prejudiced. The benefit of such a mistake straightway would go to the accused, which is not permissible. The endeavour of the Court should be to find out the truth and to give justice and to punish the real culprit. No accused can be given benefit of mistake of the Court. 7. The benefit of such a mistake straightway would go to the accused, which is not permissible. The endeavour of the Court should be to find out the truth and to give justice and to punish the real culprit. No accused can be given benefit of mistake of the Court. 7. Now, contention on behalf of the petitioners original accused that 22 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the petitioners-accused have led the evidence and have cross-examined the witnesses considering the date of incident as 12/03/1998 as mentioned in the charge is concerned, by permitting the accused persons to recall the witnesses, who are already examined and cross-examined, the apprehension on the part of the petitioners can be taken care of and no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners original accused. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in amending the charge by correcting the date of incident / offence by correcting the mistake does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed with the above observation. It will be open for the petitioners to make an appropriate application to permit them to recall the witnesses, who are already examined and cross-examined and as and when such application is preferred, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to re-examine/ re-cross-examine those witnesses on the aforesaid aspects only. It is observed that as and when such application is preferred, learned Judge to pass an appropriate order by permitting the petitioners to re-examine / re-cross-examine the witnesses on the aforesaid aspects. With these observations, the present Special Criminal Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Trial Court immediately.