IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 288 of 2025 Sonu Singh @ Sanu Singh @ Sanu, aged about 29 years, son of Late Subhash Singh, resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Near Anand Motor, Shakti Nagar, P.O. Shakti Nagar, P.S. Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh … … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : M/s. B. N. Ojha, Spl.P.P. --- 03/05.03.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner had filed this application for quashing of the order dated 16.01.2025, passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 17 of 2021, arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 181 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act, whereby and wherein the learned Court was pleased to dismiss the petition dated 21.12.2024 filed under Section 217 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for recalling of witnesses for further cross-examination after amendment of charge. It appears that on 01.03.2023, charge was framed against the petitioner under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was possessing commercial quantity of cannabis which was recovered from a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP- 64-AF-8761, and on 06.12.2024 charge was amended stating that the petitioner was owner/ occupier of the said vehicle. After the charge was amended an application under section 217 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for recalling of the witnesses for their further cross-examination, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Section 217 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Whenever a charge is altered or added to, by the Court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed- (a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to such alteration or addition, any witness who may have been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or re- examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice; (b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be material.” Section 213 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. In the present case there has been amendment regarding the material particulars. Thus, it is apparent that whenever a charge is framed or added after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor or the accused has to be allowed to recall or resummon and examine the witnesses who were already examined earlier. Though, the learned special judge has stated that the sections of the charge were not amended but if the manner of possession has been shown differently in two different charges, it will be deemed to be amendment of the material particulars. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to further cross- examine the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid fact; the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 is hereby quashed. The learned Special Judge shall give opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses, whom the petitioner wants to further cross-examine. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Saurabh Uploaded