1 2026:CGHC:13973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1426 of 2025 1 - Ayan Parvez S/o Nahid Parvez Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. YE-16, Yash Vihar, Motinagar, P S- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. (Incomplete Address Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Impunged Order) Since In Jail Through His Father Nahid Parvez, S/o Sheikh Imamuddin, Aged About - 59, Yash Vihar, Motinagar, P S- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Junaid Akhtar S/o Jahid Akhtar Aged About 29 Years Baijnath Para, Near Zee Mahasale, Ward No. 41, Police Station- City Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. Since In Jail Through His Father Zahid Akhtar, S/o Abdul Sayeed, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Baijnath Para, Near Zee Mahasale, Ward No. 41, Police Station- City Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Sohel Khan S/o Sikandar Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Punjabi Para, Daldali Road, Ward No. 13, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, C.G. Since In Jail Through His Brother Arshad Khan, S/o Sikandar Khan, Aged About- 32 Years, R/o Punjabi Para, Daldali Road, Ward No. 13, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, C.G. 4 - Vidhi Agrawal D/o Mahesh Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Agrawal House Dalepara, P.S.- Town PCO, District Sambalpur (Orissa) Present R/o 501, Aditya Heights, Telibandha, District Raipur, C.G. Since In Jail Through Her Father Namely Mahesh Agrawal, S/o Shyam Sundar Agrawal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Agrawal House, Dalepara, P.S.- Town P C O, District Sambalpur (Orissa) HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.03.27 10:15:42 +0530 2 ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P S - Ganj, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 24/03/ 2026 1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the Special Judge (Court constituted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Act”), Raipur, District–Raipur (Chhattisgarh), in Special Criminal Case No. 187/2025, (“State of Chhattisgarh vs. Monu Bishnoi & Others.”) whereby, a new charge was framed against the Accused persons/applicants under Section 29 read with Section 22(C) of the Special Act, replacing the charge previously framed on 29.10.2025. The aforesaid order is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order.” 2. The learned counsel for the revisionists/accused submits that the charge framed on 29.10.2025 was modified by the 3 "impugned order" dated 06.11.2025 without affording an opportunity of hearing; specifically, the charge under Sections 22(A) and 22(B) of the Special Act was substituted with a charge under Section 22(C). The charge alleges that, pursuant to the abetment and conspiracy of the revisionists, a total of 27.58 grams of the narcotic substance "MDMA" was seized from the co-accused; however, the substance seized from co-accused Harsh Ahuja, Monu Bishnoi, and Deep Dhanoria is not "MDMA" but "Cocaine," as is evident from the chemical test report dated 25.09.2025 issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. It is stated that only a fragment of an "MDMA" tablet was seized from co-accused Navya Malik; yet, the charge records the seizure of 27.58 grams of "MDMA," which is contrary to the record. Therefore, proceeding with the trial based on charges involving an incorrect substance and a "commercial quantity" would result in a miscarriage of justice; consequently, an opportunity for a fresh hearing regarding the charge ought to be granted. 3. The learned counsel for the State/Respondent, opposing the same, argued that the “order in question” is valid and proper. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 4 5. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that according to the chemical examination report dated 25.09.2025 issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, the seized narcotic substance weighing 27.58 grams was identified as "Cocaine"; whereas, in the charge framed against the revisionists/accused persons on 06.11.2025, the said quantity of substance has been designated as "MDMA"—a discrepancy which, prima facie, does not appear to be correct. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that, as per the order sheet dated 29.10.2025, the charges against the accused persons had already been framed previously, and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 03.11.2025; at that time, the Presiding Officer was different. Subsequently, by way of the "impugned order" dated 06.11.2025, the charges were framed afresh, by which time the Presiding Officer had changed. The reason for amending the previously framed charges is nowhere mentioned in the "impugned order," nor does it appear that the accused side was afforded an opportunity of being heard regarding such an alteration in the charges. Consequently, a prima facie error is evident with respect to the substance mentioned in the charges framed against the revisionists/accused persons. 6. Thus, while partially allowing this petition, the Trial Court is directed to afford the accused/revisionists an adequate 5 opportunity of being heard and, after amending the charges as deemed necessary, to conduct the trial in accordance with the law, to ensure that no miscarriage of justice occurs. 7. In accordance with the foregoing, this revision petition is disposed of. 8. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Trial Court concerned forthwith, for information and compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu