Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. exercisable at any trial stage; court must examine if additional evidence essential for just decision, rejection merely on ground of arguments stage improper.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Godda dismissed the criminal revision directed against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. Case No.357 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda did not allow the petitioner to prove vital documents in support of her case and rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view the fact that the case was already fixed for argument.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.09.2019, the petitioner who is the complainant of the case, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to adduce evidence to prove the mutual amicable partition deed, the genealogy of Rakhiya Devi, the decision of the village Panch and the original copy of the family settlement. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda considered that since the case is fixed for argument, there is no justification for the application under of Cr.P.C. at that stage and in the interest of justice rejected the same.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Godda and the learned Sessions Judge, Godda was of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition of the complaint under section 311 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents such as the amicable family partition, the genealogy of Rakhiya Devi, the decision of the village Panch and the original copy of the family settlement are vital documents which are required to be brought in evidence for just and proper decision of the case, hence, the trial court ought to have allowed the same, but having not done so, it has committed illegality and the learned Sessions Judge, Godda also committed illegality by ignoring this illegality committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 4 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petition having been filed at the belated stage, that is at the stage of final hearing of the arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda has rightly rejected the same and there being no illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda, the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has also rightly rejected the criminal revision. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Another vs. State of Gujarat & Others reported in 2006 3 SCC 374 that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has two parts, the first part is discretionary whereas the second part is mandatory and because of the mandatory nature of