Section 311 Cr.P.C. includes the power to admit relevant material not brought on record due to inadvertence and the duty of the criminal court is to allow the prosecution to correct errors in the interest of justice and to find out the truth.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. Vide order dated 07.02.2022, notices were issued upon opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Office note suggests that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have personally received the notice. On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 yesterday as well as today and that is why, this matter has been heard on merit in absence of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, XXIII, Ranchi, whereby, the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner for reexamination of complaint witness no. 1 and for allowing it to exhibit necessary documents for proper adjudication of the case in connection with Complaint Case No. 310/10, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, XXIII, Ranchi.

4. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.02.2017, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by opposite party no. 3 for recalling the complaint witness no. 1 for his cross-examination. He further submits that vide order dated 28.08.2017, the application of the accused was allowed and the complaint witness was recalled for cross-examination. On 12.01.2018, although complaint witness no. 1 appeared before the learned trial court for his cross-examination, but the Advocate was not present and, therefore, again the complaint witness no. 1 was discharged. He also submits that again on 06.02.2018, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed at the instance of the accused for recalling the complaint witness no. 1 for his cross-examination, which was allowed for the second time on 04.06.2018 and the complaint witness was again called for his cross-examination. Vide order dated 20.06.2018, due to non-appearance of the complaint witness for cross-examination, the examination-in-chief of complaint witness was expunged by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.06.2018. He further submits that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 28.07.2018 for recalling the order dated 20.06.2018 by which the complaint witness was closed and the examination-in-chief of the complaint witness was expunged, which was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2018 and the complaint witness no. 1 was directed to be present for cross-examination in the next date and, thereafter, the complaint witness was cross examined and he was discharged. He also submits that due to inadvertence, certain documents which are important for proper adjudication of the case, which could not be exhibited before the learned trial court either during examination-in-chief or during cross-examination of complaint witness no. 1 and, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application dated 17.11.2018 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the complaint no. 1 and for allowing the petitioner to exhibit necessary documents for proper adjudication of the case, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 by the learned trial court on the ground that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for exhibiting documents and for filling up any lacuna made by the party. He further submits that in the criminal case for finding of the truth, the learned court was required to allow the exhibit those documents, otherwise the case of the petitioner will be prejudiced.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that several opportunities were provided to the petitioner, however he has not filed those documents on time although he was having the possession of the same and that is why, the learned court has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.

6. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 10.07.2019