PRAKASH CH.PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the accused in Sessions Trial No.372/2001 pending in the Court of C.J.M. -cum -Asst. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur. After examination of the witnesses named in the complaint petition, the case was pending for examination of the I.O. At the stage, the complainant who is opp.party No.1 in the present revision filed a petition u/s. 311, Cr.P.C. to allow him to examine four other Police Officers and the local Block Development Officer as witnesses. The Trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the said prayer observing that the complainant has not assigned any reason as to how the evidence of those witnesses are essential for the just decision of the case and how examination of those witnesses is likely to improve the case of the prosecution in any manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant carried Criminal Revision No.43 of 2002 before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur. The said Court allowed that the revision, set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned C.J.M. -cum -Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur and directed the trial Court to examine the police officers and Block Development Officer as witnesses for the complainant (present opp.party No.1). Not being happy the petitioners have filed the present revision to set aside the order of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur.

(2.) MR . L.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur on the following grounds : -

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , all the witnesses named in the complaint petition had been examined and on the date fixed for examination of the I.O. the opp.party No.1 prayed the Court to summon and examine four Police Officers and local B.D.O., who had not been named as witnesses in the complaint petition. In the said petition no reason was assigned as to how the evidence of these witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case. Sec.311, Cr.P.C. says that any Court may at any stage of the enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as witnesses or recall and re -examine any person already examined, if evidence of such persons appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. When it was not indicated in the complaint petition or in the petition u/s.311, Cr.P.C. as to how the examination of the Police Officers and B.D.O. was essential for the just decision of the case, there was no scope for the trial Court to invoke the jurisdiction of Sec.311, Cr.P.C. and to allow the examination of such witnesses. Learned trial Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer of the opp.party No.1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur without taking note of the above noted factors directed for examination of the above named persons as witnesses simply observing that after examination of those witnesses, it can be known whether their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case and whether the prosecution case will improve. This approach and observation is clearly contrary to the provisions of Sec.311, Cr.P.C. and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur is thus legally unsustainable and needs to be vacated.