JUDGEMENT Samarendra Pratap Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 20.8.2008, contained in Annexure - 7, in connection with Special Case No. 13 of 2003 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna by which the petition under Section 216 of the Code of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Before I discuss the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief. 4. The allegation against the petitioner as also some other accused persons is that they by entering into a conspiracy pilfered question papers of 2003 All India P.M.T./P.D.T. Examination conducted by C.B.S.E. and sold the same to the parents of the certain examinees appearing at the said test. Further allegation is that the question papers surprisingly tallied substantially with the question papers that were printed for examination. The petitioner is alleged to be master mind of the aforesaid conspiracy. The allegation subsequently gave rise to institution of the F.I.R. of R.C.24 (A) of 2003 and Special Case No. 13 of 2003, both registered under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Sections 411,420,120 (B) read with Sections 380 and 409 of the I.P.C. 5. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court for discharge which was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court for alteration of charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge vide order dated 20.12.2006 rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner moved this Court vide Cr.W.J.C. No. 19787 of 2007 which was rejected by a detailed order dated 30.5.2007. Thereafter the petitioner moved the apex Court against the order passed by this Court. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that apex Court though not inclined to interfere with the matter gave liberty to the petitioner for taking such points as he may be entitled in any further proceeding. 7. The petitioner submits that earlier he had moved this Court, when only three witnesses were examined after framing of charge. As such the earlier application was rejected on 30.5.2007 as the evidence was at the very initial stage. 7. The petitioner submits that earlier he had moved this Court, when only three witnesses were examined after framing of charge. As such the earlier application was rejected on 30.5.2007 as the evidence was at the very initial stage. 8. He submits that by this time over 26 witnesses have been examined and the evidence of those witnesses would not support charge under Sections 411,120(B) read with Section 420 of the I.P.C. and as such he has prayed for alteration in the charge. He submits that he is not seeking discharge of the petitioner but only alteration in the charge as provided under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. Section 216 of Cr.P.C. states that any court may alter or at any time before the Judgment is pronounced. 9. The learned Counsel submits that the learned trial court, in fact, has not stated any reason for rejecting the application for alteration of charge. He submits that the learned trial court in his impugned order has not stated that the evidence adduced so far makes out a case under Sections 380, 411, 409, 120B of the I.P.C. He submits that in view of the observation of the Hon ble Apex Court granting liberty to the petitioner for taking such points as he may be entitled for any further proceeding, he filed the instant application. 10. It appears that the reason granted by the learned trial court while rejecting the application for alteration of charge is not very happily worded. It would appear from the last para of the impugned order that the evidence of the prosecution is still at an early stage, as 40 witnesses are yet to be examined. The text of the order of the learned trial court would indicate that there was not yet sufficient evidence at this stage to alter or drop the charge. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out justifiable grounds for interfering under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for the present. It appears that more than 40 witnesses are still to be examined on the date of passing of the impugned order. 12. As such this writ application is dismissed at this stage of evidence with liberty to the petitioner to take all points, if subsequently any cause of action arises. 13. The trial court would expedite the trial.