ORDER : FIR in Crime No.39/2008 was registered by the by the Haveri Town Police, against the petitioners, on a complaint filed by Basavaraj, S/o Puttappa Gorappanavar, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504, 506 read with S.34 of IPC. 2. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners, arraigned as the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.388/2008, for the offences punishable under Ss.114, 323, 504, 506 read with S.34 of IPC. Charges was framed and the accused having denied the charges and claimed to be tried, during the trial, prosecution has examined the witnesses including the Investigation Officer. 3. On 18.11.2013, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor filed an application, under S.216 Cr.P.C., for alteration of charges and for framing of additional charges for the offences punishable under Ss.451 and 355 read with S.34 of IPC. The accused filed their objections to the said application on 04.01.2015. Learned Magistrate having allowed the application on 11.06.2015, this petition was filed to set aside the said order. 4. Sri Srinand A. Pachchapure, learned advocate, firstly contended that the application having been filed after lapse of 5 years and after completion of the trial, learned Magistrate has committed error in allowing the application. Secondly, the charges having been framed on 26.06.2008 and the trial of the case being complete and the ingredients of the offences punishable under Ss.451, 355 of IPC having not been made out by the evidence recorded during the course of the trial, impugned order is perverse and illegal. Placing reliance on the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan, (2014) 11 SCC 538 , learned advocate submitted that the petition is liable to be allowed. 5. Learned HCGP, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Magistrate having been satisfied that there is need to alter to charges and there being sufficient material to frame the additional charges, the power conferred as per S.216 Cr.P.C. was exercised and that by amendment of the charges and raising the additional charges, no prejudice would be caused to the accused, as they would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and hence, this petition may be dismissed. 6. Considered the rival contentions and perused the petition. The point for consideration is, whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing the application filed under S.216 Cr.P.C.? 7. 6. Considered the rival contentions and perused the petition. The point for consideration is, whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing the application filed under S.216 Cr.P.C.? 7. S.216 Cr.P.C. deals with the alteration or addition of any charge and empowers the court to do so at any time before the Judgment is pronounced. A plain reading of the provision shows that the Court’s power to alter and add any charge is unrestrained, provided, such addition and/or alteration is made before the Judgment is pronounced. 8. S.217 of Cr.P.C. deals with the power to recall witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the Court, after commencement of trial. Hence, the Court has the competence to add or alter charge at any time before the Judgment is pronounced. Consequently, there is no merit in the first contention urged by the learned advocate for the petitioners. 9. In the case of KARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN (supra), Apex Court has held as follows: “18….. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the Court…” 10. The relevant portion of the impugned order, reads as follows: “5. On perusal of the complaint, charge sheet and other materials on record, it is clear that, there is a necessity to alter the charge as prayed in the application as all the facts constituting the offences alleged against the accused are not narrated in the charge. Further, there are sufficient materials to frame additional charges against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 451, 355 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.” 11. From the above, it is clear that the impugned order does not show the alteration or addition of the charges being for the offences made out by evidence recorded during the course of trial. Which of the charges framed need alteration and the alleged material on the basis of which there is need to frame additional charges for the offences punishable under Ss.451, 335 read with S.34 of IPC has not been indicated and the impugned order is bald. The exercise of the power under S.216 Cr.P.C., cannot be whimsical and/or arbitrary. In the result, the petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The exercise of the power under S.216 Cr.P.C., cannot be whimsical and/or arbitrary. In the result, the petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Application filed under S.216 of Cr.P.C. having not been decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law by keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, noticed supra, Trial Court shall decide the application afresh by keeping in view the observations made supra. The case being more than eight years old, there is need to decide the same with as much expedition as is possible. The accused shall extend ready co-operation to the Trial Court to decide the matter with expedition. In that regard, unnecessary adjournments sought, if any, by either side and/or the exemption applications filed, if found to be unjustified, shall be refused.