ORDER : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. Heard. 2. Charges against the petitioners were framed by the learned trial Court on 9-4-2012. The charge against the petitioners, precisely, is that on 23-4-2009 they armed with a ' Kirpan and stones waylaid, attacked and caused injuries to PWs.- Gurmeet Kour, Balbir Singh and Manjit Kour. The memo of charge framed by the trial court mentions inter alia that the petitioners have committed offences under sections 341, 323, 147, RPC. 3. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court on 3-12-2015 would show that on an application filed by informant, PW- Gurmeet Kour, the learned trial Judge noticed that as per the prosecution case, weapon, namely, 'Kirpan was used by and recovered from petitioner, Gurjeet Singh. The memo of charge framed against him contains the gist of accusation but due to oversight offence under the relevant sections have not been mentioned. Learned trial Judge, therefore, ordered addition of section 5/27 Arms Act in the memo of charge framed against petitioner, Gurjeet Singh. 4. Petitioners assail the impugned order on the ground that such an order could not have been passed on the application of the informant as the trial in a criminal case can be conducted by the Prosecuting Officer/Public Prosecutor only. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate, while reiterating the ground in the petition, argues also that some of the observations made by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order tantamount prejudging the matter and has, therefore, caused prejudice to the petitioners. 6. Section 221, Cr.P.C., 1973 requires inter alia mentioning of the law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed by the accused in the memo of charge. Section 225, however, provides that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or the particulars shall be regarded as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. Section 227 empowers the trial court to alter or add to the charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 7. Section 227 empowers the trial court to alter or add to the charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 7. In this case, learned trial Judge has ordered mentioning of the offence relating to the use of the weapon, ' Kripan by petitioner (accused) Gurjeet Singh in the memo of charge framed against him. Addition in the charge of such a nature is permissible so no error or illegality cannot be said to have been committed by the learned trial court. Contention of petitioners that such an order could not have been passed on the basis of an application filed by the informant has no substance at all inasmuch as such addition in charge can be ordered by the trial Judge suo motu also and no illegality can be said to have been committed by passing the order on the application of the informant, who is victim of the alleged occurrence. 8. I however, find substance in the argument of learned petitioner- s counsel in relation to few observations made in the impugned order. One such observation pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners reads, ' statements of all the witnesses have been recorded, who have fully corroborated the prosecution story'?. Such observations are premature at pre-decision stage. 9. For aforementioned, while dismissing this petition, it is ordered that no observation made by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order shall have any bearing with the merits of the case at its final disposal. 10. Record received from the learned trial Court be remitted back along with a copy of this order.