Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18117 of 2025 Applicant :- Gaurav Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 08.05.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sonbhadra, in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alteration of charge at the stage just prior to the conclusion of trial- specifically with respect to the insertion of the date of offence- has caused prejudice to the applicant. It is argued that although the section(s) of law and the nature of the offence remain unchanged, the modification in the order of charge dated 31.10.2020 in the year 2025 just prior to the pronouncement of judgment has prejudiced the nature of trial. It is contended that the alteration is substantial and has made to fill the lacuna in the prosecution's case, thus impacting the applicant's right to a fair trial. 3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan, (2014) 11 SCC 538. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the trial court altered the charge under its powers conferred by Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., after satisfying itself that the alteration was necessary for the just decision of the case. The change pertains to the wrong mention of one of the date of offence and certain other clarifications substituted by way of alteration or addition of charge necessary for the just decision of the case. However, the same would not prejudice the right of the fair trial of the applicant and shall have no bearing on the final outcome of the case. Therefore, the trial court have not thought of giving an opportunity to the applicant for re-examination of all the witnesses. In the light of the alteration of the charge, the re-examination of all the witnesses would further delay the trial without having any consequences of the applicant's case. 5. It is a settled legal position that the trial court is empowered to alter or amend the charge at any stage of the trial, provided such alteration is necessary for a just adjudication of the case and does not cause prejudice to the accused. In the present case, the insertion of a date and re-adjustment of the section(s) of IPC, SC/ST Act, and POCSO Act does not result in any procedural or constitutional violation of the applicant's rights. 6. In light of the above, and considering the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned order, no manifest error or illegality is found which may call for interference by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 7. So far as the above referred judgment is concerned, the facts and circumstances of the cited judgments are different from the present case, therefore, the ratio decidendi therein, cannot be applied in the present matter. 8. Accordingly, the application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Imtiyaz Vinod Diwakar, J. Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad