BHUVNESHWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/accused against the order dated 15.02.2016, passed in S.T. No.232/2015, by Sessions Judge, Betul, District Betul, whereby applications under Section 311 of Code filed by the respondent /the prosecution have been allowed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short as portrayed on the paper is that cultivator -Krishna after selling his agricultural produce at Krishi Upaj Mandi, Betul while returning, he was murdered for the amount received by him out of agricultural produce sale consideration. The applicant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The trial of S.T. No.232/2015 was almost completed and as per directions of learned trial Court, learned defence counsel was to submit written arguments, however, on 02.02.2016 learned Public Prosecutor submitted an application under Section 311 of the Code for recalling the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Betul along with documents to establish the factum that on the date of incident Krishna came to Krishi Upaj Mandi Betul for selling grains. Thereafter, again on 03.02.2013 learned Public Prosecutor submitted another application under Section 311 of the Code for recalling of some other witnesses. Even after opposition by the defence, learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.02.2016 allowed the applications filed by the respondent.

(3.) As per grievance pointed out by Shri Arup Kumar Das, learned counsel for the applicant that at this fag end of trial learned trial Court wrongly allowed the applications filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code for recalling examined prosecution witnesses for re -examination and new witnesses for examination. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that looking to the stage of the case, the prosecution should not be allowed to recall any examined witnesses or new witness to fill -up the lacuna. Learned counsel heavily relied on the case of Udai Singh Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2013 (1) M.P.H.T. 339.