RAM BHAROSA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally. The applicant is facing charges under section 466, 467 and 471 IPC. Criminal Case no. 167/2001 is pending since 16-12-2001 in the Court of JMFC, Gariyaband. In view of direction issued by Hon'ble High Court regarding expeditious disposal of the case, the learned trial Judge closed the prosecution evidence, but subsequently the Court in its discretion considered that the examination of investigating officer is necessary for adjudication of the matter and as such fixed the case for recording the statements of Investigating Officer. The petitioner preferred revision and the Ulrd Addl. Sessions Judge Raipur by order dated 17-6-2002 dismissed the revision on the ground that the provisions contained in section 311 Cr.P.C. the Court has wide discretion to call for the witnesses for evidence at any stage.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court grossly erred in re-fixing the case for prosecution evidence which was earlier closed after going through the complete record keeping in view the direction of the High Court that as the case is pending for 7 years, the matter be decided expeditiously.

(3.) SO far as examination/recall of witnesses is concerned, section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon a material witness or to examine a person present in the Court or to recall a witness already examined. It is further noted that this power in found in section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision of Supreme Court Jamatraj Vs. State of Maharashtra1 is more relevant here, in which it has been held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as under :-