AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.- VII, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 339 of 2005 whereby, the Court below, in exercise of the power u/s 311 Cr.P.C. recalled the witness P.W.- 2 Taleshwar Mahto in the ends of justice.
It appears from the impugned order that the case relates to offence u/s 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W. - 2 Taleshwar Mahto, who was the informant in the case was examined by the prosecution on 15.12.2006 and he was discharged after his cross-examination. On the same day the petition was filed by the prosecution to recall him for asking some material facts left to be asked from him, but the application was kept pending in the Court below. Thereafter, successive applications were filed in the Court below for recalling the said witness.
In view of the petition filed by the prosecution that the material question on the point of demand of dowry was left to be asked from the said informant, and in view of the fact that the case was instituted for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court below in the ends of justice recalled P.W.- 2 Taleshwar Mahto (informant) for re-examination, giving liberty to the defense to cross-examine the said witness.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and amounts to fill up the lacuna and, accordingly, the same cannot be allowed in the eyes of law.
After having heard both the sides and upon going through the impugned order I find that the witness was discharged on 15.12.2006 and on the same date when it was found that the material questions were left to be asked form the said witness, application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed for recalling him. Section 311 Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the Court at any state of enquiry, trial or other proceeding to recall and re-examine any person already examined, for just decision of the case.
The impugned order clearly shows that the material that was left to be taken from the said witness was necessary in the ends of justice and in view of the fact that the application had been filed on the same very date on which the witness was examined, cross-examined and discharged, the Court below allowed the application filed u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. In my considered view and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Court in recalling the witness was perfectly justified for just decision in the case. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby, dismissed.