The availability of key witnesses can justify allowing a prosecution's application for the examination of witnesses, despite the long delay in the trial and previous rejection of a similar application.

( 1 ) THIS Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is against the order dated 13th May, 2005 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F. T. C. III), Godda in Sessions case No. 119/1981/105/2002, allowing the prosecutions application under Section 311 of the code of Criminal Procedure regarding examination of the investigating officer and doctor, who had performed the post-mortem on the person of the deceased.

( 2 ) APPEARING in support of the Application, Mr. Jha urged that as would appear from the materials on record, the incident, relating to the Sessions Trial, is said to have occurred in 1979, and the trial has been pending since then over the last 25 years. Mr. Jha submitted that after lapse of such long period, the prosecution should not be allowed to drag on the trial, when earlier application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal procedure, at the instance of the informant, had already been rejected on 15th December, 2003. Mr. Jha also submitted that in the order dated 15th December, 2003, rejecting the informants application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the learned Sessions Judge had dealt with, in detail, the manner in which the prosecution had allowed the proceeding to be dragged on since 1979. Mr. Jha pointed out that it has been recorded by the learned court below that the case had been instituted on 17th October, 1979 impleading as many as 29 persons as accused, out of whom eight persons had died during the trial and the remaining 21 persons continued to face the ordeals of the trial over the last 24th years. Mr. Jha further pointed out that it had also been recorded that since 3rd April, 1993, the last date on which evidence had been adduced on behalf of the prosecution, no further progress has been made in the matter, which necessitated the court to closed the evidence on 4th September, 2003 and recording the statement of the accused persons after closing the evidence on behalf of the defence. Mr. jha submitted that since the matter had been decided once by the learned Sessions Judge, a second application on the self same ground was not maintainable and would attract a principle similar to that of res-judicata. According to Mr. Jha, even the court would be estopped from entertaining the second application on the self-same ground, having regard to its earlier finding on the application filed by the informant.

( 3 ) APART from the above, Mr. Jha also pointed out that in view of the long delay in conduct of the trial and the fact that no evi-dence had been adduced after 3rd april, 1993 and that the case of both the prosecution as well as the defence had been closed, continuation of the trial upon application under Section 311 of the Code of criminal Procedure being allowed, was highly prejudicial to the accused persons and the same should not have been allowed by the learned Court below.

( 4 ) THE submissions made by Mr. Jha were strongly opposed on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that charge was one involving Sections 302 /149. 325/149. 323/149 ipc and Section 27 of the Arms Act and that both the I. O. and the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem, are now available for examination.

( 5 ) ORDINARILY Mr. Jhas submission would have been acceptable to the Court, for the gravity of the offence involved and also on account of the fact that although no witness has been examined after 1993, no steps were taken to bring the trial to an end till the prosecution and the defence closed their respective cases in September,2003. There is no doubt that the prosecution has been extremely negligent in prosecuting the case and has allowed the trial to be dragged on for more than 25 years. But now when I. O. and the doctor, through whom the postmortem repart is to be proved, are available and have appeared before the Court, there is no reason why the prayer of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. P. C. should not have been allowed by the learned Se