Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned S. C. (L & C) for the respondent.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 for further cross-examination.

3. A First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on 12.05.2013 an information was received that one Rajesh Gupta who is named accused in Baghmara P. S. Case No. 121 of 2013 is trying to flee away from his hide out. On such information the informant along with other Police personnel surrounded the abode of the accused Rajesh Gupta who on seeing the Police party he tried to flee away but was apprehended. It is also alleged that while the informant was trying to take away the accused in a police jeep his supporters reached the spot and upon ransacking the police vehicle had taken away Rajesh Gupta from police custody.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2013 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353, 332, 290, 427, 283, 224, 225, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet on 20.08.2013 against the petitioner and others and cognizance was subsequently taken. After charges were framed against the petitioner trial proceeded and altogether fourteen witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in course of trial. The accused persons have also been examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. On 14.09.2015 an application was preferred by the petitioner along with other accused persons under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. However, the said application was rejected on 14.09.2015. Subsequent thereto on 06.06.2016 the petitioner had filed another application for recalling the Investigating Officers namely Alok Singh and Shailendra Kumar Singh who had been arrayed as P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 for further cross-examination. Another application was filed seeking time to file certain copies of various letters which have been mentioned in the said application. Vide order dated 09.06.2016 the prayer with respect to bringing on record the documents were allowed whereas the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and which is impugned to the present application.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that recalling P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 is necessary for the just decision of the case in view of the subsequent development from which the petitioner could come to know that an application for grant of sanction has been made before the authority but the said fact was never brought by the Investigating Officer before the court below. It has been submitted that the P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 in absence of the petitioner having any knowledge about the steps taken for sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. have never been cross-examined on the point of sanction and, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be necessary for recalling them for their further cross-examination. Learned counsel also submits that two applications were preferred by the petitioner before the learned trial court and the prayer made in both the applications were interconnected, as such allowing the first prayer and refusing the second prayer of the petitioner tantamounts to non-application of mind on the part of the learned trial court. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 so far as it relates to refusal of the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned deserves to be quashed and set as