ORDER : S.G SHAH, J. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Savjani for the petitioner and Mr. Dave, Ld. Advocate and Mr. Raval, Ld. APP for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. Mr. Savjani, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner is right in submitting that though the applications at exhs. 107 and 127 are partly allowed by the order dated 22/12/2015 and thereby though the Sessions Court ordered to add factum of paras 4 and 5 in the charge already framed and thereby charge is to be modified; unfortunately, the Sessions Court has, may be in utter haste, framed charge afresh again on the same day i.e. 22/12/2015, but while doing so, the Sessions Court has unfortunately committed some errors and thus reference of sections 302, so also 364 of the IPC is missing in revised charge framed on 22/12/2015 in exh. 87, though original charge framed on 9/6/2015 is disclosing the commission of offences under such sections. 3. Similarly Sessions Court has failed to add the facts as per paras 4 and 5 of application exh. 107 and 127, though it is the reason for modification of charge. At the same time, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner is right in submitting that when the charge is re-framed, new plea is to be recorded, but unfortunately new plea of all the accused was not recorded that whether they admit guilt or not. If plea is recorded as per original charge dated 9/6/2015, then it is not sufficient because the Sessions Court has allowed the application at exh. 107 and 127 and thus practically after charge dated 9/6/2015, new charge was framed on 22/12/2015. Therefore, fresh plea is also to be recorded as per revised/modified charge. 4. In view of such modification of original charge, there must be fresh plea recorded. At the same time, application exhs. 107 and 127 are allowed and thereby when original charge is to be modified, then there may not be basic change in the text of the new charge except the addition of new paras, which is allowed pursuant to the order passed below application exhs. 107 and 127; unfortunately it seems that the Sessions Court has framed charge on 22/12/2015 afresh without relying upon the charge dated 9/6/2015 so also order passed below application exhs. 107 and 127. 5. 107 and 127; unfortunately it seems that the Sessions Court has framed charge on 22/12/2015 afresh without relying upon the charge dated 9/6/2015 so also order passed below application exhs. 107 and 127. 5. Therefore, now there is a need to frame charge afresh and to record plea afresh so far as all accused, who are already present before the Sessions Court and facing the trial. However, considering the fact that in addition to 10 accused, who are already before the Sessions Court, now two more accused are to be added and as pleaded by the Ld. Advocate, now additional charge-sheet is filed against one Mahesh Ramanlal Chaudhari and Girish Haribhai Patel. Otherwise also fresh charge needs to be framed against two newly added accused since now sanction is accorded to prosecute them as they were Government servants at the material time. Therefore, also when the case is of the conspiracy and abetment by all accused with each other in commission of crime, there is need to frame consolidated charge against all accused in all three cases pending against all such accused based upon same set of incident viz. Sessions Case Nos. 67/2012, 68/2012 and 30/2013. 6. In view of above facts and circumstances, the Sessions Court is now directed to frame charge against all 12 accused which include new accused against whom additional charge-sheet is filed. While framing fresh charge, the Sessions Court shall consider entire record available before it from both the charge-sheets and shall not omit anything which was disclosed in the previous charge either regarding facts related to commission of particular offence or conspiracy to commit such offence, so also basic details of offence with sections with reference to the offence for which charge is to be framed. Since charge is to be re-framed against all the accused, it becomes now clear that the prosecution is required to recall all the witnesses, if at all necessary, subject to their role against each accused. 7. One more strange and surprising position is revealed from the record i.e. examination of Mahesh Ramanlal Choudhary as a witness though initially he was disclosed as an accused, but could not be prosecuted for want of sanction. 8. 7. One more strange and surprising position is revealed from the record i.e. examination of Mahesh Ramanlal Choudhary as a witness though initially he was disclosed as an accused, but could not be prosecuted for want of sanction. 8. Now when the charge-sheet is filed against him, it becomes clear that he is not witness in the entire case, but he is accused and in that case, prosecution should not examine him as a witness. It goes without saying that certainly he would not support prosecution when he is examined as a witness. In any case, when charge-sheet is filed against him and charge is framed against him, his deposition is to be discarded from the record, though it will remain on record physically. 9. The Sessions Court is directed to expedite the trial since one of the accused is in custody. It goes without saying that the Sessions Court shall decide the Sessions cases purely on merits and in accordance with law and without being influenced by this order. 10. In view of the above, the Revision Application and Misc. Criminal Application stand disposed of accordingly.