ANIL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 1998 by which he has re-opened the prosecution evidence and directed for recording of the evidence of two witnesses.

(2.) The case was earlier admitted and the lower court records were called for. The same have since been received.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that once the court has passed an order closing the prosecution evidence, he cannot re-open the same since it lacks the power of review. The second contention is that after the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been recorded, the court cannot go back and call or recall any witness under Section 311 of the Code. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution evidence was closed by the court on 7.1.2002 and thereafter on 5.2.2002 the statement of the accused, that is, the petitioner, has also been recorded on 5.2.2002 under Section 313 of the Code. He submits that the court once having applied its mind and closing the prosecution evidence cannot suo motu review its earlier decision inasmuch as by the impugned order dated 23.7.2002 the prosecution evidence has been re-opened and the statement of two prosecution witnesses has been directed to be recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered in the following cases:--