Short Note : 1. This is a revision petition against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1974 convicting the applicants to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, conviction against them being under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code only. 2. While the trial was going on the charge under section 323 IPC was added and the learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration, the evidence produced by the prosecution has acquitted the applicants under section 395 and section 397 IPC, but has convicted them under section 323 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above This is a revision against the said order. 3. The only grievance made before me which goes to the root of the case is that after framing new charge under section 323 IPC, the applicants were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses afresh, whose statements were already recorded and this has prejudiced them and therefore, the conviction is bad in law. 4. Hold: Section 231 Cr. P.C., (old) and section 217 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 give the right to the accused when the charge is altered or added, to cross-examine any witnesses. That right is unfettered one. In this case, it is not clear whether the counsel who appeared for the applicants informed the Court that he did not want to examine the witnesses who had been examined formerly. Nor there is any mention to that effect by the Court. Therefore, it will have to be said that the accused were prejudiced and they could not put forward their case properly. The effect of this will be that the conviction under section 323 IPC will have to be set aside. That being the case the result will be that the revision will have to be allowed. After lapse of four years, I do not think that this is a fit case in which a remand should be ordered and the accused be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Revision allowed.