ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The issue involved in the instant petition is that whether by allowing application under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') filed on behalf of the prosecution, order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the court below is illegal improper or irregular. As per the facts of the matter, in a Special Case No. 08/14 (State Vs. Anil Kumar and 02 Others) under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'), Bastar at Jagdalpur, during the trial an application under Sec. 311 of the Code has been filed on behalf of the prosecution and prayed that names of two important witnesses, i.e. Minakshi Chandel and Jaykrishan were left bonafidely in the list of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution wants to call them and examine them for the proper adjudication of the matter. The Court below vide order dated 07.12.2015 allowed the said application and ordered that Minakshi Chandel and Jaykrishan be called through summon for their evidence. Against the said order, the applicant has filed the instant criminal revision wherein the ground taken that the Court below erred in allowing the application under Sec. 311 of the Code and the power given to the Court to call the witnesses under the provisions only be used for fair and just decision of the case. Name of the witnesses were not included in the list of witnesses given on behalf of the prosecution in the trial programme and after recording the statement of the accused applicants under Sec. 313 of the Code, the Court ordered for the examination of those witnesses which is improper and caused serious prejudice to the applicants. The prosecution has taken sufficient opportunity to produce their witnesses and recording their statement and thereafter to defeat the defence available to the applicants, the application under Sec. 311 of the Code has been allowed and the trial Court ordered for evidence of those witnesses, hence, it is prayed that the revision may be allowed and impugned order dated 17.02.2015 may be set aside.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent/State, the petition is opposed orally.