JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 21.7.2011 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Balotra whereby learned trial Judge amend/alter the charge and framed charge for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in addition to offence under Section 327 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 6.4.2010, after hearing arguments for framing charge, the trial Judge framed charges for offence under Sections 327 and 341 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After framing aforesaid charges, the trial Court proceeded to record prosecution evidence and statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and arguments of both the parties were heard and case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment. Before pronouncement of judgment, Public Prosecutor filed an application on 19.7.2011 stating therein that due to.mistake charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has not been framed in which the sentence upto 10 years is provided, therefore, charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may also be framed and case may be decided accordingly. 3. The petitioner filed reply to the application in which it is stated that on the basis of evidence available on record, arguments were heard and charge was framed and at that time prima facie it was found that no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out, therefore, the above charge was not framed.and now the said order cannot be reviewed because the order dated 6.4.2010 framing charge has not been challenged by the complainant or the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in reply it was also pointed out that after recording the prosecution evidence, final arguments have been heard, therefore, it is not proper to alter or add the charge for which the trial took place. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was not proper for the trial Court to alter the charge in the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, it is prayed that order impugned may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was not proper for the trial Court to alter the charge in the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, it is prayed that order impugned may be quashed. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment of this Court reported-in 2009 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1262, Prahlad v. Ram Kumar & Anr. and submits that the order impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the order impugned for the reason that under Section 216 Cr.P.C., Court can alter or add charge at any stage before pronouncement of judgment, therefore, the order impugned is perfectly justified. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned as well as Section 216 Cr.P.C., so also the-judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.First of all, Section 216 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "216. Court may alter charge.-(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced." 8. Upon perusal of the above provision of Cr.P.C., it is crystal' clear that there is power left with the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment. Therefore, in my opinion there is no embargo or restriction imposed upon the trial Court not to add or alter the charge before pronouncement of judgment. Further, in the order under challenge, the trial Court not only added the charge but took care of granting an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses again or to produce evidence in his defence. The specific assertion has been made in the order impugned for opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded in trial and further opportunity to lead evidence in defence has been granted. The specific assertion has been made in the order impugned for opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded in trial and further opportunity to lead evidence in defence has been granted. The following opportunity has been granted vide impugned order dated 21.7.2011 : " ;g izdj.k fu.kZ; dh LVst ij gS ;|fi odhy eqyfte us xokgksa ls ftjg djus gsrq rFkk lQkbZ 'kgknr is'k djus gsrq muds fuosnu ij i;kZIr le; fn;k tk pqdk gSA odhy eqyfte dh vksj ls izLrqr mDr izkFkZuk i= dks/;ku esa j[krs gq;s ;fn odhy eqyfte fdlh Hkh xokg ls j;s fljs ls pktZ ds fcUnq ij ftjg djuk pkgs ;k lQkbZ 'kgknr is'k djuk pkgs rks bu lHkh rF;ksa dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, U;k;kfgr esa odhy eqyfte dks leqfpr volj fn;k tkrk gSA " 9. I have also perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the application filed by the prosecution for amending charge was rejected because there was no material on record to frame the charge. 10. On the basis of above discussion, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by trial Court while allowing the application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for adding charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******