ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Petitioners of both the present petitions are accused in Sessions Case No.02/2013 (State of Rajasthan v. Shivnarayan & Ors.) pending before the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases Alwar and have challenged a common order dated 13.02.2024 dismissing their applications filed under Section 217 Cr.P.C. and thereby refusing to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination by petitioners, after addition/alteration of charges against them. Thus, in both petitions, order under challenge is common and identical issue has been raised, hence, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decide by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, factual matrix of the case, as culled out from the record and not in dispute to the extent that on the basis of news item, published in Daily Newspaper "Alwar Jharokha", in month of March, 2000, a complaint was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short "ACB") and investigation was initiated. The complaint was in respect of allegations of connivance between officials of the Public Health Engineering Department (for short "PHED") and other persons to create bogus firms and thereby accepting tenders from such bogus firm, at the higher rates, in PHED, that too without following tender process and in utter violation to the Financial and Accounts Rules. It was alleged that without obtaining the delivery of goods, the bills were cleared in favour of firms which cause loss of Rs. 2,13,795/- to the State Government and provided extraneous financial benefits to the firms. After thorough investigation, as many as five Government employees of PHED department namely (i) Shivnarayan AEN, (ii) Girraj Prasad AEN, (iii) Harlal AEN, (iv) Satish Divisional Store Keeper, (v) Chandraswaroop Sharma Supervisor were found to be in collusion with (vi) Bhupenra Sharma Proprietor of firm Krishna Electronics, (vii) Abhishesh Sharma Proprietor of firm Popular Engineering, and (viii) Atul Gupta Proprietor of M/s Atul Sales Corporation and it transpired that without following the tender process, their bids were accepted for supply of goods at higher rates and goods allegedly supplied by these firms in PHED were not physically verified, thus, a clear case of criminal conspiracy among all above named persons was found proved by ACB and charge-sheet for offence under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120B IPC was filed. 3. After filing of charge-sheet, vide order dated 25.05.2015 charges were framed. 3. After filing of charge-sheet, vide order dated 25.05.2015 charges were framed. In the order dated 25.05.2015, against five Government employees of PHED, charges for offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) & 13 (1) (2) of PC Act were framed and against three persons who were Proprietors of firms, charges for offences under sections 12 of PC Act r/w Sections 109 & 120B IPC were framed. Thereafter, prosecution and defence evidence have been concluded and at the stage of final argument, learned Public Prosecutor moved an application dated 14.12.2023 under Section 216 Cr.P.C., pointing out that erroneously or inadvertently, charges for offence under Section 120B IPC against Government employees of PHED could not be framed and charges for offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) & 13 (1) (2) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC could not be framed against other three accused persons and prayer was made to alter charges against accused persons accordingly. 4. It may be noted that out of five Government employees of PHED, one accused Chandraswaroop Sharma (supervisor) passed away during the trial and out of three Proprietors of firms, Bhupendra Sharma, Proprietor of firm Krishna Electronics also passed away, hence, criminal proceedings against both accused persons were dropped. 5. It appears that petitioners opposed the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., however the trial Court vide order dated 30.01.2024 allowed the application with following observations:- 6. It is noteworthy that the order dated 30.01.2024, whereby and whereunder altering/adding charges have been done by the trial Court, has not been challenged by petitioners, but they filed separate applications under Section 217 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the prosecution witnesses namely Nirmal Jain (PW-1), Suresh Kumar Jakad (PW-2), Anil Kumar (PW-6), Kailashchand Gupta (PW-10), Nitin Sharma (PW-11), Sohanlal (PW-12), Ramniwas (PW-13), Chandraprakash Kalra (PW-14), Brijpal Singh (PW-16), Ramniwas (PW-17), Indsingh (PW-18) and Narainlal (PW-21). 7. These applications filed under Section 217 Cr.P.c. were opposed by the Prosecution and after hearing both parties, trial Court vide common order dated 13.02.2024 dismissed these applications, which has been impugned by petitioners by way of filing these Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. 7. These applications filed under Section 217 Cr.P.c. were opposed by the Prosecution and after hearing both parties, trial Court vide common order dated 13.02.2024 dismissed these applications, which has been impugned by petitioners by way of filing these Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the scope of Section 217 Cr.P.c. is wide enough as well as mandatory in nature and whenever a charge is altered or added by the Court, after the commencement of the trial, accused is entitled to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination to the extent of charge which has been altered/added. He argued that after alteration of charge by the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C., adherence to the procedure as envisaged under Section 217 Cr.P.C. is incumbent upon the Court in order to ensure a fair trial. He also urged that refusing the prayer of petitioners to recall the prosecution witnesses, named hereinabove, cause immense prejudice to them and amount to deprivation to their legal rights of a fair trial. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of R. Rachaiah v. Home Secretary, Bangalore [ (2016) 12 SCC 172 ] and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Chhotai and Ors. v. State of U.P.. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor controverted contentions made by the learned counsel for petitioners and while supporting the order impugned dated 13.02.2024 contended that in the present case, addition/alteration of charges is not of substantial nature but it was merely a technical error of not indication of the provisions of law which has been rectified. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in fact petitioners are well aware about the nature of accusation/allegations against them in the present criminal case and they have cross-examined the prosecution witnesses in that tune, hence petitioners can not claim to put at surprise by addition/alteration of charges, more particularly where the charge-sheet was filed against petitioners with such charges as have been amended. He further submits that there is no likelihood of any prejudice to the accused persons by refusing to recall the prosecution witnesses rather allowing the prayer of petitioners would defeat the ends of justice and would not be in consonance to the statutory provisions of Section 216 and 217 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and both petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no quarrel about the legal proposition in respect of provision of Sections 216 and 217 Cr.P.C. that same are mandatory in nature and both provisions protect rights of accused persons as also of prosecutor to have full opportunity to plead their cases after addition/alteration of charges and same also sub serve the requirement of principles of natural justice. Similar proposition has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R. Rachaiah (supra), which has been followed in later and spirit by the High Court of Allahabad in case of Chhotai (supra), on which learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance. In case of Chhotai (supra), criminal trial was concluded against accused for offence under Section 306 and at the fag end of trial, charge under Section 306 IPC was altered with the charge under Section 302 IPC, wherein accused was convicted, hence, the conviction and sentence of accused for offence under Section 302 IPC was set aside by the High Court to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 216 and 217 Cr.P.C. and matter was remanded back to the trial Court to start a fresh trial from the stage of framing the additional charges under Section 302 IPC. 12. In the present case, charge-sheet against petitioners has been filed making out a specific case of criminal conspiracy by petitioners and thereby put loss to the Government Exchequer for Rs. 2,13,795/- and to provide illegal gains to the firms. Thus, joint allegations against petitioners for having connivance with each other and committing offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC are well within their knowledge since beginning and at least after filing the charge-sheet for such offences against them. 13. 2,13,795/- and to provide illegal gains to the firms. Thus, joint allegations against petitioners for having connivance with each other and committing offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC are well within their knowledge since beginning and at least after filing the charge-sheet for such offences against them. 13. Further the order of framing charge dated 25.05.2015 also makes it clear that petitioners opposed to frame charges for criminal conspiracy and for offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of PC Act but the Court refuted their contentions and made following observations in the order of charge:- 14. Further in the order dated 30.01.2024 whereby and whereunder charges have been altered/amended, Court has observed that in the basic order of charge i.e. dated 25.05.2015, allegations for the offences sought to be altered also finds place, however just to make it clear, the specific provisions of law were indicated against petitioners. Thus, the order dated 30.01.2024 is clarificatory in nature, whereby the charge with indication of provisions of law have been specified. In this view, it is not that case where by addition/alteration of charges, petitioners have been put to surprise but petitioners were already well aware since beginning about the real nature of accusation/allegations leveled against them and for which they have faced the trial. 15. Learned counsel for petitioners could not make out a case that how and in what manner prejudice would be caused to petitioners by not allowing to recall the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court in the order impugned dated 13.02.2024 has clearly observed, after taking into consideration, the statements of prosecution witnesses, sought to be recalled, that the cross-examination from the side of accused, have already been made from all angles. It has also been observed that the Investigating Officer, Sh. Vishnaram (PW-15) clearly stated that after investigation, charge-sheet for offence under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d) & 13 (2) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC was filed against accused persons. The petitioners could not establish that cross-examination on the charges added/altered vide order dated 13.01.2024 was not made from their side and failed to show any prejudice would be caused to them, by refusal to recall the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners could not establish that cross-examination on the charges added/altered vide order dated 13.01.2024 was not made from their side and failed to show any prejudice would be caused to them, by refusal to recall the prosecution witnesses. The powers of Court to recall the witnesses, after alteration/addition of charges as envisaged under Section 217 Cr.P.c. are subject to satisfaction of the Court about the attached conditions as prescribed in the provision of Section 217 Cr.P.C. itself, which reads as under:- 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 re-examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. 16. In the opinion of this Court, petitioners are not be able to make out a case of "Failure of Justice" by refusing to recall the prosecution witnesses but trial Court has rightly observed in the order that their prayer to recall the prosecution witnesses is only a camouflage, not a need for a fair trial rather allowing the same would defeat ends of justice. Trial Court has not committed any patent error of jurisdictional or law in dismissing the application filed by petitioners under Sections 217 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.02.2024. 17. Consequently, both petitions are devoid of merits and same are hereby dismissed. 18. Stay applications and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. 19. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.