JUDGMENT R.D. Kothari, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 120 of 2011, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 2. Point involved is fairly short. It appears that complainant has filed complaint against the present petitioner for offence under Sections 323, 325, 114 of Indian Penal Code read with section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act. Police had accordingly filed charge-sheet and Criminal Case No. 693 of 2002 was pending before the Criminal Court. It further appears that complainant has given an application Exh. 7 and has prayed to alter the charge from Section 325 to Section 326. Trial Court has rejected that application. That order was carried in Sessions Court and Sessions Court was pleased to allow the revision. Hence, the present petition. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. C.B. Raval, for the petitioner, learned APP, Mr. H.L. Jani, for the State but learned advocate for complainant has remained absent. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that after filing of criminal case and after lapse of 8 and/or 9 years, present application is given and for that reason only, application for alteration of charge is not maintainable. Learned advocate has also drawn attention to Section 216 of Criminal Procedure Code and relying on it, it was also argued that trial Court can amend the charge, at any stage, and that being so, directing the Court to alter the charge of Section 325 to Section 326, at this stage, before recording evidence, is not proper. 5. Learned APP has tried to support the order under challenge. 6. It appears that learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in setting aside the order of trial Court. Sessions Court has referred and relied upon Clause (v) of Section 320 of IPC. 7. While relying on Section 320 of IPC, learned Sessions Judge has missed the point that Section 325 and 326 both deals with grievous hurt. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that distinction between two provisions mainly relates to nature of weapon that is used in causing grievous hurt. Trial Court has observed that only a pipe was used in the present case and no weapon was used by other accused. Prima-facie, reasoning given by the trial Court appears to be proper and legal. Interference of Sessions Court appears to be wrong. 8. Trial Court has observed that only a pipe was used in the present case and no weapon was used by other accused. Prima-facie, reasoning given by the trial Court appears to be proper and legal. Interference of Sessions Court appears to be wrong. 8. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the present petition. It may be clarified that it is not possible to agree with the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that because there is a lapse of 8 and/or 9 years and for that reason only, the charge cannot be altered. Merely, delay cannot be ground, this submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not possible to accept. It is hereby made clear that if on receipt of evidence, trial Court is of the view that even prima facie case of Section 326 is made out, it would be open for trial Court to alter the charge from 325 to 326 after drawing attention of the accused in this regard. 9. Without expressing any opinion on merits, present petition is allowed. It is reiterated that this Court has not expressed any opinion whether the offence is under 325 or 326. Trial Court is free to proceed against the accused in accordance with law on receipt of evidence. 10. With above direction and observation, petition is allowed. Trial to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. To above extent, rule made absolute.