JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.245 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro dismissed the revision petition; thereby upholding the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.1553 of 2016 arising out of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.223 of 2016. In this criminal miscellaneous petition, prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro whereby, the petition of the prosecution to examine one witness Dr. Arjun Prasad and another petition to examine another witness Amar Chandra Jha was allowed, by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, though their names were not appearing in the witness column of the charge sheet. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 30.07.2024, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution, to correct the name of one witness Amar Chandra Agarwal whose name was appearing in the witness column of the charge sheet; as Amar Chandra Jha. The IO filed the Aadhar Card of the witness and the trial Court corrected the name of the witness Amar Chandra Agarwal as Amar Chandra Jha vide order dated 25.09.2024, on the ground that the same was a clerical mistake and further went on to allow the prayer of the prosecution, to examine Amar Chandra Jha as a witness in the case. On 25.09.2024, the trial Court also took up the petition filed by the prosecution, praying therein that as Dr. Arjun Prasad has furnished injury report, hence, his examination as a witness, be allowed for the just decision of the case and the same was also allowed. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.245 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide order dated05.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro and learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro both have failed to appreciate that there is no such procedure to allow correction of the name of charge sheeted witness by replacing the charge sheet witness by another person; who is not a charge sheeted witness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro and learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro both have failed to appreciate that there is no such procedure to allow correction of the name of charge sheeted witness by replacing the charge sheet witness by another person; who is not a charge sheeted witness. It is next submitted that the IO did not record the statement of the Dr. Arjun Prasad, hence, the trial Court committed a grave illegality by permitting examination of a doctor as witness of the prosecution and the learned Session Judge, Bokaro failed to take note of the said illegality and went on to dismiss the revision. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that it is a settled principle of law that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has two parts, the first part is purely discretionary authority of the criminal court and the second part is mandatory, so if the examination of a witness is required for the just decision of the case, the court has no option but to allow examination of such witness. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that the Dr. Arjun Prasad is the doctor who prepared the injury report, the copy of which has been supplied to the petitioner along with police papers. The petitioner who is the accused person of the case is not taken by surprise by examination of Dr. Arjun Prasad, as the copy of the injury report furnished by him is already in his possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witness namely Amar Chandra Jha is also been supplied to the petitioner with the police papers but his name has erroneously been mentioned as Amar Chandra Agarwal but be it Amar Chandra Agarwal or Amar Chandra Jha, the petitioner/accused person has not been taken by surprise by such examination of the witness. The petitioner is at liberty to put any questions to the witness Amar Chandra Jha regarding his surname; as and when he enters the witness box, by way of his cross-examination. The petitioner is at liberty to put any questions to the witness Amar Chandra Jha regarding his surname; as and when he enters the witness box, by way of his cross-examination. It is next submitted that, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in allowing the prayer of the prosecution to examine Dr. Arjun Prasad and the witness Amar Chandra Jha vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in the said case and as there is no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate, obviously the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has not committed any illegality either by dismissing the Criminal Revision No.245 of 2024. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a criminal court can allow the prosecution to examine a witness even if his name has not been mentioned in the witness column of the charge sheet. Charge sheet is a document prepared by the police and the names of the persons appearing in the witness column of the charge sheet is the names of such persons, who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. It is not a definite list of witnesses that can be examined in Court because the police never say that such persons whose names are appearing, in the witness column of the charge sheet, are the only persons who are acquainted with the circumstances of the case. Court has the power to summon any witness regardless of whether they were initially listed in the charge sheet, if their testimony deemed essential for the just decision of the case and exactly for the said purpose Section 311 has been incorporated in the Cr.P.C. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the Dr. Arjun Prasad has furnished injury report of the victim in the case. It is not disputed that the injury report furnished by Dr. Arjun Prasad has been supplied to the petitioner along with police papers. A doctor who examines a injured person is an expert witness, his statement is not required to be recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. Arjun Prasad has furnished injury report of the victim in the case. It is not disputed that the injury report furnished by Dr. Arjun Prasad has been supplied to the petitioner along with police papers. A doctor who examines a injured person is an expert witness, his statement is not required to be recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. Because section 161 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates, the police officer to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case, if a doctor except for examining the injured person, has no personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the occurrence, the statement of such doctor need not be examined orally by the Police Officer. The offence involved in this case inter alia is punishable under Section 325 of the India Penal Code, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he does not know for which offences charge has been framed against the petitioner; who is the accused person of the case, but the copy of the FIR which has been filed as Annexure-1 goes to show that the FIR was drawn up involving the offences under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code also, no plea has ever been taken before this Court or before the Revisional Court or even before the trial Court that no offence for which a injury is to be proved by the prosecution is involved in the charge framed against the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstances, keeping in view of the nature of allegations and that the FIR involves the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality as in such a case, the examination of the doctor who has examined the injured person, being an expert witness, is required for the just decision of the case. 9. So far as the examination of the Amar Chandra Jha is concerned, it is the plea of the prosecution that in fact because of clerical error, the name of Amar Chandra Jha has wrongly been mentioned as Amar Chandra Agarwal. The prosecution has filed an Aadhar Card of the witness Amar Chandra Jha. There is no dispute that the address mentioned of Amar Chandra Jha and Amar Chandra Agarwal is same. The prosecution has filed an Aadhar Card of the witness Amar Chandra Jha. There is no dispute that the address mentioned of Amar Chandra Jha and Amar Chandra Agarwal is same. The trial court was well within its inherent power to rectify the clerical error, even without any specific provision of law for the same. It is needless to mention that it is a settled principle of law that every court has inherent power over its own records, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has saved such power for the High Court. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial court by allowing examination of Amar Chandra Jha also as a witness of the prosecution. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in passing the order dated 25.04.2024 in connection with G.R. Case No.1553 of 2016 by the learned trial court or by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in the order dated 05.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.245 of 2025, hence, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 by this Court. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed.