PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed in T.R. No. 43 of 2001 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar rejecting his application filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling the witnesses i.e. P.W. 5, P.W.25 and P.W. 32 for their cross-examination.

(2.) The petitioner is facing trial for a case under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and after prosecution evidence had been closed and the case was posted for examination of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the application under Sec. - 311 Crl.P.C was filed on behalf of the accused praying to recall P.W.5, P.W. 25 and P.W.32 stating that some questions relating to the assets of the petitioner could not be put to these witnesses.

(3.) Mr. S. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Deba Prasad Das, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Anr reported in AIR 2013 SC 3081 and submits that power under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court at any stage if it appears to the Court that it is essential for a just decision in the case and in this case it was necessary to cross examine the three witnesses for arriving at a just and correct decision . He has submitted that P.W 32 has been examined on 12/3/2013 and the case was posted for cross examination after lunch. This witness was discharged as the defence was unable to cross examine him on the same day. He was thereafter re -examined by the prosecution on 11/1/2019 as the person who had taken charge of the investigation and submitted chargesheet had died. PW 32 was cross examined on 17/1/2020 and therefore due to the Covid 19 pandemic, the case could not be taken up and when court work was resumed, the application under Sec. 311 Crl.P.C was filed on 29/11/2021 for summoning him and two others for cross examination.