JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir in C.T.R. No. 14/62 of 2003-07 in allowing the petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) in recalling P.W.3 Bhaskar Patra, the complainant in the case for cross-examination. The said case arises out of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.67 of 2002 in which charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that P.W.3 was examined in chief, cross-examined and discharged on 24.10.2011 and he fully supported the prosecution case and even denied to the suggestion put forth by the defence that there was no demand or acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. Learned counsel while placing the statement of P.W.3 given before the learned Trial Court submitted that some statements have been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.3 that he and the accused (petitioner) were residing inside the Laltikra Colony and the wife of the petitioner was dealing with Amway articles and P.W.3 had purchased SA8 Gelzyme, Glister toothpaste and brush worth of Rs.498/-from the wife of the petitioner and he had not paid that amount to the wife of the petitioner or to the petitioner until he lodged the report. He contended that to nullify the effect of such statements elicited in the cross-examination, the prosecution deliberately filed a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C..

3. It is mentioned in the petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed on 26.09.2012 that during cross-examination, the complainant introduced a new story which is inconsistent with the prosecution case and Vigilance investigation and therefore, cross-examination of P.W.3 from the side of the prosecution is very much necessary. The petition filed by the Special P.P. (Vigilance) was allowed by the learned Trial Court and P.W.3 was summoned to appear before the Court for cross-examination and the date was fixed to 26.11.2012. It appears that the impugned order was challenged before this Court and on 20.11.2012, this Court in Misc. Case No. 2212 of 2011 stayed further proceeding of the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the stay order, P.W.3 has not been cross-examined on recall as per the impugned order dated 09.10.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused and when the defence has brought out some material facts in its favour in the cross-examination, the prosecution cannot be allowed to nullify the effect such cross-examination by recalling such witness otherwise the whole purpose of cross-examination would be lost. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific questionnaire has been indicated in the petition under section 311 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the learned Trial Court should not have entertained such a petition and allowed the same. Learned counsel further submitted that when the witness P.W.3 has specifically denied to the suggestion put forth by the defence counsel that the amount which is outstanding against him was paid to the petitioner on the date of occurrence, there was no justification on the part of the prosecution to file a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C.

Mr. Prasanna Kumar Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department supported the impugned order and contended that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the Criminal Misc. Case should be dismissed.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the petition filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C., it is found that prayer has been made to recall P.W.3 and allow