ORDER 1. These appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2009, in CRLP No. 285/2008 and CRLRP No. 287/2008, passed by the High Court of Delhi. 2. Genesis of the three appeals arises out of an order passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., discharging the accused under Section 255 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'the IPC'). 3. The order of the Special Judge, C.B.I. was challenged before the High Court. The High Court also confirmed the discharge order passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, the present appeals are filed. 5. At the outset we may note it is seen from the material placed before this Court relates to three F.I.Rs which were filed in different police stations. Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2013 arises out of F.I.R. No. 803 of 1999 filed at Defence Colony Police Station, which was subsequently converted into R.C. No. 5 of 2004. Charge sheets in this case were filed on 9.1.2004 and 22.9.2004.Criminal Appeal No. 1982 of 2013 arises out of F.I.R. NO. 442 of 2001 filed at Darya Ganj Police Station, which was subsequently converted into R.C. No. 1 of 2004. Charge sheets were filed on 17.11.2001, 18.8.2004, 14.3.2005 and 22.7.2005. Criminal Appeal No. 1983 of 2013 arises out of F.I.R. No. 604 of 2002 filed at Hauz Khas Police Station, which was subsequently converted into R.C. No. 2 of 2004. Charge sheets were filed on 28.12.2002, 9.7.2003, 24.12.2003, 21.7.2004, 9.8.2004, 20.3.2006 and 2.7.2007. 6. We may note that the cases relate to the issue of not framing charge under Section 255 read with Section 120B IPC. The trial was not proceeded further. 7. It may be noted that the appeals are pending before this Court since 2009. Interestingly, even though the notice was served on the respondent-accused, but nobody appeared for them. Thereafter, this Court, ultimately requested Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel to appear and assist us in these cases. 8. We have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondents at length. 9. Thereafter, this Court, ultimately requested Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel to appear and assist us in these cases. 8. We have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondents at length. 9. Taking into consideration all the facts, learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI suggested that instead of keeping these appeals any further, they can be disposed of by confirming the order of the High Court granting liberty to the Special Judge, CBI, to consider addition of charge after taking note of the evidences led and if the material is so present, to alter or add Charge, as per section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 accordingly. 10. In view of the above, Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned amicus curiae suggests that this can help the prosecution and also at the same time takes care of the interest of the respondent-accused. He submits that the trial pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I. would be expedited, due to the liberty granted. 11. Considering the above submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the CBI and the learned Amicus Curiae, while confirming the impugned order passed by the High Court we grant liberty to the Special Judge, CBI to alter or add charge under Section 216, Cr.P.C., 1973 after recording the evidence or taking note of any material produced. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of. 12. Taking into consideration the long pendency (more than 16 years), we request the Special Judge, C.B.I. to expedite the trial.