Trial courts must record reasons and hear the accused before altering or amending criminal charges.

The revisionists challenged an order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 187/2025

Initially, charges were framed against the applicants on 29.10.2025 under Sections 22(A) and 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("Special Act")

Subsequently, after a change in the Presiding Officer, the "Impugned Order" was passed, replacing the earlier charges with a new charge under Section 29 read with Section 22(C) of the Special Act, alleging the conspiracy and seizure of 27.58 grams of "MDMA"

The revisionists contended that the State Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 25.09.2025 identified the seized substance as "Cocaine" rather than "MDMA," and that the quantity of MDMA actually seized was negligible, making the "commercial quantity" designation under Section 22(C) factually incorrect

1. Whether the Trial Court’s substitution of charges without affording the accused an opportunity of being heard was legally sustainable

2. Whether the framing of charges based on a substance (MDMA) and quantity that prima facie contradicted the Chemical Examination Report (Cocaine) constituted a material error

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

It applied the principle that while a court has the power to alter charges, such alterations must be justified by the record and must adhere to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right of the accused to be heard

The court further relied on the evidentiary necessity of aligning charges with forensic findings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The High Court observed that a significant discrepancy existed between the judicial record and the charges framed.

The chemical examination report dated 25.09.2025 clearly identified the 27.58 grams of seized substance as "Cocaine," yet the Trial Court’s charge on 06.11.2025 erroneously designated it as "MDMA"

The successor officer amended the charges to a more severe category (commercial quantity) without recording any reasons for the alteration or providing the accused an opportunity to contest the change

The Court determined that proceeding with a trial on factually incorrect charges regarding the nature of the contraband would result in a miscarriage of justice

It held that a prima facie error existed regarding the substance described in the charges

The Court directed the Trial Court to provide the revisionists an adequate opportunity to be heard and to subsequently amend the charges as necessary to align with the forensic evidence and the law

The Trial Court was ordered to conduct the remainder of the trial in strict accordance with legal procedures to prevent any miscarriage of justice