JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Informant as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 13.02.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the court after making alteration in the charge denied the opportunity to the defence to cross-examine the witnesses examined earlier on behalf of the prosecution. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners were put on trial on the charge that they did not commit murder intentionally of one Vinod Singh and on framing of charge, the witnesses were examined and after examination of all the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused persons were recorded and then the matter was fixed for argument and then at that stage, charge was altered, whereby, it was charged that the petitioners also did commit murder of one Manu Ansari. After the charge was altered, the court did not find fit to give opportunity to defence to recall the witnesses for cross-examination as according to the court, the accused persons had cross-examined the witnesses by taking that it is a case of double murder, but here, the court did commit illegality for the reason that once the charge has been altered, the court was duty bound to recall or re-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution for their cross-examination, in view of the provision as contained in Sub-Clause (a) of Section 217 of the Cr.P.C., but the court did not consider this aspect of the matter rather placed reliance on the provision as contained in Sub-Section (3) and (4) of Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code only and thereby, the court did commit illegality in refusing to summon the witnesses for cross-examination. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the trial proceeded right from beginning by taking that it is a case of double murder, which would be evident from the fact that the prosecution did examine P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17, and 18 and also adduced documentary evidences such as Exhibits 2/1, 2/3, 4, 6, 11 which evidences are related to murder of Manu Ansari and those witnesses had even been cross-examined by the defence and, therefore, the court did not consider it fit in the light of the provision as contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. to allow the defence to summon or recall the witnesses and thereby, the court never committed any illegality. 5. In the context of the submission, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 216 as well as Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. 216. Court may alter charge :-(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded. 217. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded. 217. Recall of witnesses when charge altered :-Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed - (a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to such alteration or 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 reexamine 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. 6. From reading of those provisions, it does appear that in a case of alteration of the charge, there would be no need of recalling or re summoning the witnesses already examined it in the opinion of the court no prejudice would be caused, but if the court does feel that on account of the alteration of the charge, prejudice would be caused to the accused then the witnesses examined are necessarily to be recalled or re-summoned for cross-examination in view of the provision as contained in Section 216(4) of Cr. P. C. Those provisions as contained in Section 216 of Cr.P.C. never seems to be contrary to provision as enshrined in Section 217 of Cr.P.C. rather the aforesaid provisions are supplementary to each other. 7. On reading of Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. also, one would find that the court does have power to refuse the prayer of the accused to recall or re-summon even in a case of alteration of the charge on the ground recorded therein. 8. 7. On reading of Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. also, one would find that the court does have power to refuse the prayer of the accused to recall or re-summon even in a case of alteration of the charge on the ground recorded therein. 8. Here in the instant case, as has been indicated above, it appears that the petitioners were initially charged to have committed murder of one person, but the trial virtually proceeded taking it that it is a case of double murder and, therefore, some of the witnesses are exclusively on the point of murder of the deceased, namely, Manu Ansari whose name was added later on in the charge and all those witnesses had already been cross-examined by the defence. 9. In such situation, the court seems to have rightly passed order of not summoning or recalling the witnesses already been cross-examined by the defence. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality with the order impugned and hence, this application stands dismissed.