Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010211722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./390/2025 JEHERUL ALI S/O SABUR ALI R/O VILL- KAMALABARI P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SALMA JAHAN dD/O LATE IDDRISH ALI R/O VILL- GARAIMARI GAON P.O. PACHIM MAZDIA P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781305 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 438/442 read with Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jeherul Ali, impugning the order dated 27/08/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 98/2023, whereby, the charges framed against the accused persons of that case was altered by rectifying the date of commission of the alleged offence from 01/03/2023, which was mentioned in the previous memorandum of charges to 28.02.2023 by the Trial Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the informant and has deposed as PW-6 in the said Sessions Case No. 98/2023. He further submits that the petitioner has while deposing as PW-6 has stated that the incident occurred on 28.02.2023 at about 12 at midnight. However, he had stated in the date of occurrence of offence to be on 01.03.2023. He further submits that the petitioner had also deposed that later on he filed a rectifying FIR with a prayer to correct the date of occurrence of offence to 2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that after culmination of the trial when the matter was fixed for delivery of judgment, the charges were altered and the Court has also summoned PW-13 for cross- examination as well as Judicial Magistrate Mr. M. Bhattacharyya, who recorded the statement of the witness, Choukat Ali Sikdar under Section 164, Cr.P.C as Court witness. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that alternation of charge at that statewould change the nature of the case and by summoning the Judicial Page No.# 3/4 Magistrate whose name was not mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet, the undue advantage may be given to the accused. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised a preliminary objection that the application under Section 438/441 of the BNSS is not maintainable inasmuch as the order which has been included in this case falls within the category of an interlocutory order. 7. He also submits that the petitioner himself would, while deposing as PW-6 stated before the court that the alleged incident had actually occurred on 28.02.2023 and not on 01.03.2023. He therefore, prays for dismissing the instant revision petition without issuing any notice. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for both sides. 9. Section 239 of the BNSS empowers the Court to alter charge at any stage of the trial and in this case, the date of alleged offence was rectified by the Trial Court in the memorandum of charges as in the earlier memorandum of charge, the date was mentioned as 01.03.2023, which the present petitioner himself while deposing as PW- 6 has contradictory and has stated the correct date to be 28.02.2023. 9. It also appears that while altering the charge, the learned Trial Court had heard both the sides and no objection was raised by any of the parties. 10. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the charges were altered, the Trial Court rightly gave the opportunity to the defence side to further cross- examine the witnesses, which it desired to and accordingly, PW-13 was summoned again for the purpose of cross-examination, as regards summoning the Judicial Magistrate Mr. M. Bhattacharyya is concerned, the trial does have the power to summon any person as witness at any stage of trial. 11. Moreover, the objection raised by the Public Prosecutor regarding the maintainability of this criminal revision petition, as the impugned order falls within the Page No.# 4/4 category of interlocutory order may also not be followed. 12. For aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is dismissed without issuing notice to the opposite parties. JUDGE Comparing Assistant