Gauhati High Court
Jeherul Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 19 September, 2025
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
