The wide power conferred by Section 311 of the Code should be exercised judiciously in the interest of justice, and it is essential to bring the F.I.R. on record for a just decision.

The two petitioners have preferred this present revision application against the order dated 02.07.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in G.R. Case No.818 of 2004 corresponding to T.R. No.1176 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the court has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') and permitted the prosecution to examine the witness Laxminarayan Mahto, a Munsi of Police Station, who has brought the original F.I.R. (Sanha) of the case to prove the said document and mark the same as an exhbit.

2. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Md. Dilabar Baitha, Godda (Mufassil) Sanha Case No.502 of 2004 dated 28.07.2004 was lodged on the allegation that when the two petitioners Mustkim Baitha and Tajudeen Baitha were ploughing the land from the tractor, the informant came to the field and protested whereupon the petitioners assaulted the informant with Lathi and abused him also. The informant received injury in the head and body and when his wife came to his rescue, the petitioners assaulted her also. After hearing Hulla, the villagers came and saved the informant and his wife.

3. It appears from the record that after submission of the charge sheet, the court took cognizance of the offence and after framing of charge prosecution witnesses were examined. After closure of evidence, both the parties were heard and the case was fixed for judgment on 30.11.2010. It further appears that on the date of judgment i.e. on 30.11.2010, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code with a prayer that as the original Sanha is not available on record and the Munsi of the concerned Police Station Laxminarayan Mahto has brought the original Sanha, an opportunity be given to the prosecution to bring the said Sanha on record after examination of the said Laxminarayan Mahto. It further appears that the two petitioners filed their rejoinder to the said petition and after hearing both the parties, the court below allowed the petition filed by the prosecution holding that when the entire F.I.R. is incorporated in the case diary and the case is based on the said First Information Report bearing Godda Mufassil P.S. Case (Sanha) No.502 of 2004 dated 28.07.2004, in the interest of justice, the presence of that document on record is necessary and justifiable.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned submitted that because of nonfiling of Sanha by prosecution at proper stage, a valuable right has accrued to the petitioners and by filing the petition under Section 311 of the Code, the prosecution wants to fill up the lacuna which cannot be allowed at the fag end of the trial when the case was fixed for judgment. It was also submitted that in the petition under Section 311 of the Code no reason was assigned much less to the satisfaction of the Court as to why the said Sanha was not produced earlier and the parties were fully aware of the fact that the original F.I.R. (Sanha) is not on record. Learned counsel further relying upon a judgment reported in 2006(2) J.L.J.R. 625; Ravi Bhushan Dubey & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. submitted that if the prosecution fails to produce the witnesses and allowed the case to hang for several years, after closure of the prosecution case the petition for examination of witnesses cannot be allowed. Learned counsel further relying upon a judgment reported in 2007(1) East Cr C 513 (Pat); Nesar Ahmad @ Nasser & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr. submitted that since the documents does not come within the ambit of Section 311 of the Code, the power under Section 311 of the Code cannot be exercised.

5. The main objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial continues for almost 56 years and after closure of the prosecution evidence and the argument of both the parties when the case was fixed for judgment, the prosecution filed the aforesaid