JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 read with section 397 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order passed by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur on September 20,1984; whereby he directed the amendment of the charge. On April 15,1983 a charge-sheet was filed by the police in the court of Sessions Judge Bharatpur for offence under sections 3/7 & 319 of the Essential Commodities Act. Along with charge-sheet the police submitted several documents as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On July 13,1983 the plea of the accused was recorded wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution evidence started from September 6, 1983 and onwards. It went on till the prosecution evidence was closed on May 15, 1984 on which date the case was adjourned for defence. The accused examined himself on July 4, 1984 and got the statements of two more witnesses recorded in his defence. On August 16,1984 one more witness was examined by the defence and thereafter the case was listed for final hearing. Arguments were heard on September 12, 1984 and the case was posted for judgment. There after on September 19, 1984 further arguments were heard on behalf of both the sides and the case was posted for judgment on September 20,1984. On this date the court passed the impugned order. In this order the learned Sessions Judge mentioned that on perusal of the record he found that the shop was inspected twice, i.e , July 28, 1981 and November 18,1981 and thus two separate reports were prepared in this respect and both of them were sent to the police for registering the case on the basis of which after investigation charge-sheet had been filed but the court read out the statements of accusation to the accused only in respect of the inspection, dated November 18,1981 and it was read over in respect of the material collected during investigation. It was mentioned that when the prosecution has led evidence in respect of both the reports it is essential that substance of the accusation should be re-read to the accused and further opportunity for leading the evidence may be given to the parties. It was mentioned that when the prosecution has led evidence in respect of both the reports it is essential that substance of the accusation should be re-read to the accused and further opportunity for leading the evidence may be given to the parties. The court thus read out further statements of accusation on the same day in this order and recorded the subsequent plea of the accused which has been challenged in this petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that this order of the learned Sessions Judge has been passed in order to fill in lacunas in the prosecution case and the same is not permissible. It is further submitted that there is no such evidence on record that inspection was carried on twice, i.e. July 28,1981 and November 18,1981. The attention of the court was drawn towards the statement of P.W. 10. Brij Kishore, who in the cross examination stated that he had not gone for checking on any day prior to November 18,1981 and in this view of the matter the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in re-framing the charge is based on erroneous perusal of the record. 3. Learned public prosecutor controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ex.P. 17 is on record which makes a mention of inspection dated July 28,1981 and, therefore, the order is correct and submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have carefully gone through the entire record of the case. 5. Before I proceed with the merits of the case, I would like to observe that the office of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur has not comedy maintained the record of this case. Exhibits have been haphazardly placed on record and the paging of the file has also not been correctly done according to rules. 6. Coming to merits of the entire record I would not locate any inspection report dated July 28,1981. What is Ex.P. 17 to which the Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention is a report made to the S.H.O., P.S. Nadbai on November 2, 82 wherein in para 2 there is only mention that the Enforcement Inspector had obtained some record on July 25,1981 which was checked on August 24,1981 wherein some irregularities were found. What is Ex.P. 17 to which the Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention is a report made to the S.H.O., P.S. Nadbai on November 2, 82 wherein in para 2 there is only mention that the Enforcement Inspector had obtained some record on July 25,1981 which was checked on August 24,1981 wherein some irregularities were found. It does not mean that any checking was done on July 28,t981 unless some document to that effect prepared in presence of the motbirs, had been placed on record. There are only Iwo memos on record of the v.hole case, they are Ex. P. 13 dated August 24,1981 and the order Ex.P. I I, dated November 18,1981 but none like that of dated July 28,1981 as mentioned in the learned Judge. Ex facie, therefore, the order is passed on no evidence on record. It appears that the Enforcement Inspector Instead of checking the shop had obtained certain documents from the accused on this date, i.e. July 28,1981 of which a receipt was passed and has been exhibited as Ex. D.1. but this Ex D.I could not obviously be the checking report as mentioned in the order. The Enforcement Inspector, Brij Kishore P.W. 10, himself does not say a word in his statement about his checking Rama's shop on July 28,1981. On the contrary he negatives the suggestion put to him in the cross examination. Not only this, the police itself while filing the charge-sheet did not mention therein that the shop was inspected on. July 28, 1981. Ex.P. 17 which has been made the basis of the entire argument is a report by the Enforcement Inspector to the S.H.O. which at best could be called to be an FIR in case the police would have registered a case on it and has no evidentiary value. Besides this, police in its own wisdom neither investigated into this report dated November 24, 1982 nor made it the basis of the charge sheet nor the Enforcement Inspector in his statement made it to be a basis. In this view of the matter the order, dated September 20,1984 is based on legal evidence on record and deserves to be quashed. In this view of the matter the order, dated September 20,1984 is based on legal evidence on record and deserves to be quashed. Consequently I accept this petitions set aside the order dated September 20,1984 and consequent re-reading over of the statement of accusation to the accused and direct that the case should be decided on the material as it existed prior to September 20,1984. i.e. on the substance of allegation read over on July 11,1983. 7. In the result, the petition is accepted. The order dated September 20,1984 is set aside. The record of the case be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur forthwith, with the direction to proceed with the case expeditiously.Petition allowed. *******