JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The three Criminal Revisions relate to same petitioner and since common questions of fact and law are involved, all the three matters are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The petitioner was initially convicted under Sections 409 and 468, Indian Penal Code, by the trial Court and the order of conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court. Criminal Revision No. 638 of 1932 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 7-2-1994 reported in (1994) 7 OCR 215 (Bhabagrahi Mayak v. State of Orissa). The revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal on the ground that there had been improper framing of charges in contravention of Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") and that there had been defective examination of the accused person u/s 313 of the Code. The matter was remitted to the trial Court with the following observations : "In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed, judgments of the Courts below are set aside and remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal of the case in accordance with law. The evidence on record shall be considered while disposing of the case......." After the matter was remitted, it appears that the trial Court split up the single case into three cases which have been re-numbered as G. R. Case Nos. 455, 455-A and 455-B of 1986 (corresponding to Criminal Revision Nos. 156/96, 154/95 and 155/96 respectively) and the charges were re-framed and altered. The accused-petitioner, filed three separate applications in the three trial cases for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. By separate orders passed on 11-1-1996 in the three different cases, the trial Court rejected such applications solely on the ground that in the judgment passed by the High Court in the Criminal Revision remitting the matter for fresh disposal, no direction had been given to cross-examine the witnesses already examined. The trial Court opined that since the High Court had observed that "the evidence on record shall be considered while disposing of the . case", there was no scope for any further cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. The legality of the aforesaid orders in the three trial cases has been questioned by filing three separate revision applications. 3. The trial Court opined that since the High Court had observed that "the evidence on record shall be considered while disposing of the . case", there was no scope for any further cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. The legality of the aforesaid orders in the three trial cases has been questioned by filing three separate revision applications. 3. Evidently, the applications for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination had been filed in accordance with Section 217 of the Code. The said provision is extracted hereunder: "217. Recall of witnesses when charge altered : Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencent of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed- (a) to recall or resummon and examine with reference to such alteration of 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." The said provision corresponds to Section 231 of the old Code with the addition of the words "unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor Of 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".. It had been held in some cases rendered under the old Code that the provisions of Section 231 (which now corresponds to Section 217) were mandatory and if there is any alteration of charge after commencement of trial, the parties are to be given opportunity for further examining or cross-examining the witnesses. It had been held in some cases rendered under the old Code that the provisions of Section 231 (which now corresponds to Section 217) were mandatory and if there is any alteration of charge after commencement of trial, the parties are to be given opportunity for further examining or cross-examining the witnesses. There has been slight alteration in the new provision and a direction is now vested in the Court u/s 217(a), regarding recalling of witnesses and addition of the expression "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." In view of the present provision of Section 217, a Court can reject an application to recall or re-summon witness if it is of the opinion that the application, has been filed with a view to delay the proceeding or for defeating the, ends of Justice or for the purpose of vaxation. There is further requirement for the Court to record its reasons in. wtiting for coming to such conclusion. In other words, though some discretion is vested in the Court, the said discretion is not unbriddled one, but has to be exercised for the reasons indicated in Section 217(a) itself. If the Court comes to a conclusion that the application for recalling a witness is for the purpose of vexation, or delay, or for defeating the ends of justice, then only it can reject such application for re-examination of a witness. The provision has been incorporated with a view to protect either party from being prejudiced by alternation or addition of any charge after the commencement of the trial and sufficient opportunity has been provided both to the prosecutor and the accused to recall and re-summon any- witness already examined Such re-examination-or: cross-examination is, of course, confined, to matters touching the altered or newly added charge as evident from the expression "......and examine with reference,to such alteration or addition". Ordinarily such art application is to be granted unless the. Court considers that the application has been filed for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. 4. Ordinarily such art application is to be granted unless the. Court considers that the application has been filed for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. 4. In the present case the trial Court has nowhere recorded that the application has been filed for the purpose of vexation, or delay, or defeating . the ends of Justice. It has rejected the application merely because the High Court had observed that the evidence on record should be considered while disposing of the case". The said observation of the High Court was never intended to curtail the right of the parties conferred u/s 217 of the Code. On the other hand, the said observation had been made to obviate the question of a de novo trial, as envisaged in Section 216(4) of the Code. The provisions of Section 216 (3) and (4) as well as the provisions of Section 217 are required to be construed harmoniously and have been enacted with a view to abjure any possibility of any prejudice to the parties in a criminal case. u/s 216(3), if the Court is of the opinion that no prejudice is likely to be caused, it can straightway proceed with the trial, as if the altered or added charge, had been the original charge. if, on the other hand, the Court is of the .opinion that the alteration or addition in charge is likely to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor, it may adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary or even direct a new trial as contemplated in Section 216(4). Section 210 (3) and(4) may relate to a stage prior to actual recording of evidence or any other stage of the trial, whereas Section 217 relates to alteration or addition of charge after the commencement of the trial, i. e. recording of evidence. But for the observations which had been made in the judgment while remanding the case, possibly the question u/s 216(4) as to whether a new trial should be held or not, would have cropped up and in order to avoid such a situation the High Court had opined that the evidence on record should be considered while disposing of the case. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the High Court had, in fact, intended excluslon of applicability of Section 217 of the Code. 5. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the High Court had, in fact, intended excluslon of applicability of Section 217 of the Code. 5. Since the trial Court has not considered the scope and to direct the trial Court to reconsider the application filed by the. accused person and pass necessary orders in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 217 of the Code and the observations made hereinbefore. The Criminal Revisions are accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed