B.S. Verma, J.— (Oral) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27-2-2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Session Trial No. 14 of 2011, State Versus Karamjeet Singh, P.S. Lalkuan, District Nainital. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has framed additional charge U/S 376 I.P.C. against the accused/revisionist. Perusal of record reveals that in Session Trial No. 14/2011 the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges U/Ss 363 and 366 I.P.C. against the accused/revisionist on 4.11.2011. Thereafter statements of prosecution witnesses started. Prosecutrix Km. Puja and Smt. Dharma Devi grand mother of Km. Puja appeared before the trial court and their statements were recorded on 27-2-2012. In the examination in chief of prosecutrix Km. Puja it has come that the accused prior to the instant incident had committed rape upon her four times. On the above statement learned Sessions Judge framed additional charge U/S 376 I.P.C. against the accused/revisionist. Feeling aggrieved by the order of framing charge U/S 376 I.P.C. against the accused, the accused has preferred this revision. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that after investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/revisionist in respect of offences U/Ss 363 and 366 I.P.C. and in the statement of the girl recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. she has categorically stated that she did not had any sexual relationship with the present revisionist. She has further stated that revisionist was her friend and she had gone with him. It has further been contended that in the statement of the girl recorded before the Sessions Judge, for the first time, she added that revisionist had sexual intercourse with her and even before the girl was cross-examined, the Sessions Judge, has hastily framed charge of offence U/S 376 I.P.C. as additional charge against the revisionist, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of State has contended that in para-9 of the examination in chief of prosecutrix Km. Puja before the trial court, she has categorically stated that prior to instant incident the accused had enticed her four times and had sexual intercourse with her and the learned Sessions Judge was well within her jurisdiction to frame additional charge of offence U/S 376 I.P.C. against the accused/revisionist. I have perused the statement of prosecutrix Km. Puja. Puja before the trial court, she has categorically stated that prior to instant incident the accused had enticed her four times and had sexual intercourse with her and the learned Sessions Judge was well within her jurisdiction to frame additional charge of offence U/S 376 I.P.C. against the accused/revisionist. I have perused the statement of prosecutrix Km. Puja. In para-9 of her statement, she has made a categorical statement on oath that the accused had committed rape with her four times prior to the instant incident. She has narrated how and when the accused had committed rape upon her. She has also stated that the police had not asked her about the prior incident, therefore, she did not tell the police about the offence of commission of rape upon her by the accused prior to the instant incident. Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to alter charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The learned Sessions Judge has framed additional charge on the application of the D.G.C. (Criminal) when this fact came to light in the statement of the prosecution for the first time that the accused had committed rape upon her. I find no jurisdictional error in framing the additional charge. No prejudice is caused to the accused/revisionist since the accused will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the point of commission of rape upon her. Further Section 217 Cr.P.C. makes provision to recall the witnesses when the charge is altered. If the prosecutor or the accused/revisionist move application for recall of the witness before the trial court the same shall be considered by the Sessions Judge in accordance with law. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. The interim order dated 5-3-2012 passed by this court is vacated. _