Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Jitendra Nath Ghoshal, Son of Ramesh Chandra Ghoshal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.1054 of 2025
Decided on : 07-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
The court affirmed the discretionary power of trial courts to allow witness examination even if not listed in the charge sheet, emphasizing the necessity for just decisions.
Headnote:(A) B.N.S.S., 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 and Section 482 - Quashing of orders - The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the examination of witnesses not listed in the charge sheet, emphasizing the court's discretion to summon any witness essential for a just decision. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterated that the examination of witnesses is a discretionary power of the court, which must be exercised to ensure justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders allowing the examination of witnesses not listed in the charge sheet, arguing procedural illegality. The trial court corrected a clerical error regarding a witness's name and allowed the examination of a doctor who prepared an injury report.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the trial court's orders, affirming the inherent power of courts to rectify clerical errors and the necessity of expert testimony for just decisions.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court could allow the examination of witnesses not listed in the charge sheet and the legality of correcting a witness's name.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court acted within its discretion under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to allow witness examination for a just decision, and that clerical errors can be rectified by the court.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.245 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro dismissed the revision petition; thereby upholding the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.1553 of 2016 arising out of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.223 of 2016. In this criminal miscellaneous petition, prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro whereby, the petition of the prosecution to examine one witness Dr. Arjun Prasad and another petition to examine another witness Amar Chandra Jha was allowed, by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, though their names were not appearing in the witness column of the charge sheet.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 30.07.2024, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution, to correct the name of one witness Amar Chandra Agarwal whose name was appearing in the witness column of the charge sheet; as Amar Chandra Jha. The IO filed the Aadhar Card of the witness and the trial Court corrected the name of the witness Amar Chandra Agarwal as Amar Chandra Jha vide order dated 25.09.2024, on the ground that the same was a clerical mistake and further went on to allow the prayer of the prosecution, to examine Amar Chandra Jha as a witness in the case. On 25.09.2024, the trial Court also took up the petition filed by the prosecution, praying therein that as Dr. Arjun Prasad has furnished injury report, hence, his examination as a witness, be allowed for the just decision of the case and the same was also allowed. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.245 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide order dated05.12.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro and learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro both have failed to appreciate that there is no such procedure to allow correction of the name of charge sheeted witness by replacing the charge sheet witness by another person; who is not a charge sheeted witness. It is next submitted that the IO did not record the statement of the Dr. Arjun Prasad, hence, the trial Court committed a grave illegality by permitting examination of a doctor as witness of the prosecution and the learned Session Judge, Bokaro failed to take note of the said illegality and went on to dismiss the revision. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that it is a settled principle of law that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has two parts, the first part is purely discretionary authority of the criminal court and the second part is mandatory, so if the examination of a witness is required for the just decision of the case, the court has no option but to allow examination of such witness. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that the Dr. Arjun Prasad is the doctor who prepared the injury report, the copy of which has been supplied to the petitioner along with police papers. The petitioner who is the accused person of the case is not taken by surprise by examination of Dr. Arjun Prasad, as the copy of the injury report furnished by him is already in his possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witness namely Amar Chandra Jha is also been supplied to the petitioner with the police papers but his name has erroneously been mentioned as Amar Chandra Agarwal but be
