The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of Section 311 and Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code in allowing the examination of witnesses and admission of relevant material not brought on record, to ensure the just decision of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pradyumna Poddar, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Rev. No.11 of 2022 whereby the learned court has affirmed the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. The prayer is also made to quash the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with C/1 Case No.54 of 2010 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for calling original challan, which is the subject matter of R.C.07(S)/2010-AHD-R was dismissed.

3. The petitioner filed complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa against respondent nos. 2 to 4 stating therein that M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. is a mining lessee and is engaged in production of Iron Ore at Village Ghatkuri P.S. Gua within the district of West Singhbhum. For the purpose of dispatch of Iron Ore that are extracted from the aforesaid mines, transit challans in Form D were issued by the Mines Department, Government of Jharkhand. In course of day to day dispatch of iron ore from the aforesaid mines, the transit challans in Form D issued to the aforesaid company were issued to the accused persons who were employed in the said company for use or to return the same to the mines manager, if unused. One such Transit Challan Book contains 100 leaves bearing serial numbers. Each leaf has got four counter foils, one of the same is for record of the lessee company and the other three parts are meant for use at different staged of the same transit. Concerned employees to whom the transit challans are issued are responsible for proper use of the transit challans for the purpose of transit of minerals dispatched by the company only and to return the same either used or unused. It has come to light that one book containing Transit Challans in Form D was not returned either used or unused by the concerned employee of the company. Therefore, information was immediately given to the Gua P.S. about missing of the same by way of abundant precaution to avoid its misuse and verification was also conducted in this regard. In course of verification/ checking of records of transit challan books, it transpired that fourteen other challan books were not returned either used or unused by the concerned employees, i.e. the accused persons, which they were duty bound to return. As such the accused persons were directed to return the challan books issued to them individually, which was not complied, leading to issuance of charge sheets against the erring employees/accused persons and explanation was sought. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities to return the challan books, the accused person failed/neglected to do the same nor any reasonable explanation was given by the accused person, thereby it was apprehended that said transit challan books were lost/removed dishonestly/misused and an Informatory Petition being no.4/2010 was filed on 25.01.2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in relation to 15 books of transit challan in Form D and an information was also given to the Officer In-charge of Gua Police Station on 01.04.2010 by registered post. Therefore a domestic enquiry was conducted against the delinquent employees/accused persons in which the accused persons categorically admitted that the aforesaid challan books were issued to them and those were not returned. Therefore, the accused persons were found guilty of serious misconduct and were dismissed from their service. It was conclude that the accused persons had misused the transit challans for their personal gains. Upon filing of the complaint the same was numbered as C/1 Case No.54 of 2010 and thereafter the complainant and its witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. at the sta