PRAMOD V. UDDAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant is challenging the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangpur, District-Rajgarh in Criminal Case No. 31/2013, whereby the application preferred by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the State Bank of India Sarangpur Branch, District-Rajgarh. On 2.10.2012 a report has been lodged by the then Branch Manager of the Branch namely Mr. Satyendra Sharma that the petitioner along with other accused persons including some Warehouse owners has played fraud with the bank by opening forged accounts in the name of farmers on the basis of the stock available in the Warehouse belonging to the other accused in the matter. First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner and the other accused persons for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC and the petitioner has been arrested and subsequently the bail has been granted in his favour. It is further submitted that the prosecution has filed its final report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution agency has also submitted its list of 16 witnesses in the matter. Thereafter the trial Court has framed the charges against the present petitioner under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC. The matter has been fixed for the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has recorded the examination-in-Chief of some of its witness and the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness has also been duly conducted on behalf of the petitioner and the other accused persons. That, on 30.8.2019 the prosecution has filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for examination of further more 25 witnesses in the matter on the ground that their names could not be cited under the trial program by mistake. However, their statements were not recorded by investigating agency under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during investigation. The trial Court has allowed the said application vide order dated 23.11.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the object of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and also failed to appreciate that no further investigation has been done under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.and has also failed to appreciate that the interpretation of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must be done in consonance with the provisions of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. there is no over ridding effect has been given to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. She further submitted that the court below has also failed to see the prejudice caused to the petitioner if the statements of these witnesses were recorded and the application has been filed by the prosecution only to fill up the lacuna. In such circumstances, she prayed that the impugned order be set aside. She has relied on the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of State by Inspector of Police vs. S. Sankaran and another: reported in 2005 Cri.L.J.1474.